ise 
eet as 
at 
ore 
itty 


> s 2 Sapte oe a ar ne sity : Pe TY 
Les ee : ae Nee ; Oe. : ; eat eee 


¥. 


eaday? : 
Pre ae!” Se al 
Sys 

As 
wat 3 


Wee 


rt 


AN ety 


Rn 


QO 











5 \ 

ai 
fy 

we 


en ae 
bit e' 
gore 


a A 








a aes 


} aie 1 
Panty Si 
mt A ad 1) 


PNY Ss Ps 
TAG 


y« 


La) 


Vey 
Is 
Hi 
Pape ty: 
1) 


+i. 
ue) 
ae re 


oy 





on ‘ ae 
Te ay, 
i) Lee 
VaR Phas 


THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 
GEERHARDUS VOS, Pu.D., D.D. 





THE SELF-DISCLOSURE 
OF JESUS 


THE MODERN DEBATE ABOUT -—_____ 
THE MESSIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS Qh OF PRINCE 
Vv 





Byeny 
GEERHARDUS'VOS, pu.p., D.v. 


PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 
IN PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


NEW (a0 YORK 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT, 1926, 
BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


@D 


THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 
jal Eee 
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


PREFACE 


The time is not so long past when for the appraisal of 
what was of permanent value in Christianity the alterna- 
tive was formed: Not Paul but Jesus. At present this for- 
mula is beginning to lose its dividing force. The alterna- 
tive has been shifted back into the mind of Jesus Himself; 
the question, Whether Paul or Jesus? has become the ques- 
tion, Which Jesus? In the consciousness and teaching of 
our Lord, a solid preformation of the Pauline Christ has 
been discovered, and the offense taken at the latter has had 
to be extended to the former. It is the Messianic character 
of Jesus over which the anti-Pauline interpretation of Chris- 
tianity now finds itself stumbling. What the cross was in 
the days of the Apostle, the Messiahship is to the modern 
advanced “Christian” mind, the great rock of offense. But 
it is a rock not easy to remove, and moreover one from 
which there is no further retreat backward except into 
plain liberal Judaism. The attitude towards it determines 
in the profoundest way the character of the subjective piety 
that would feed upon the New Testament. Let no one 
delude himself with the soothing comfort that the contro- 
versy is all about scraps of external belief and does not 
touch the core of practical devotion. With its decision the 
Christian religion stands or falls. Tua res, pia anima, 
agitur! For the purpose of helping to make this somewhat 
clearer the following book was written. 

The author acknowledges indebtedness to the Biblical 
Magazine for permission given to incorporate certain ma- 
terial previously published in that journal. 


GEERHARDUS VOS. 


Princeton, 
September, 1926. 


a 
ai 


(ee 
Wiis 


i: ‘Y 4 
Mi 





k 


CHAPTER 


I 


II 


CONTENTS 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE MEssIANIC Con- 
SCIOUSNESS 


THe DENIAL OF THE MEssIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS 


THE DENIAL OF THE MEsstanic CONSCIOUSNESS 
(Continued ) 


Tue Acnostic Posrrion: WREDE 
THE THEORY OF PROSPECTIVE MESSIAHSHIP . 


‘THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF JESUs INTO THE 
Messianic CoNsCIOUSNESS 


THE THEORY OF PurRELY FORMAL SIGNIFICANCE 
OF THE MEssIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS 


“THE CHRIST’ 
se Lltie. LORD’ 
THE Son oF Gop 


THE Son oF Gop (Continued): AsCRIPTION OF 
THE TITLE To JEsus By OTHERs 


Tue Son oF Gop (Continued): THE SONSHIP OF 
JEsUs IN THE FourtTH GosPEL . 


THE Son oF MAn 
‘THE SAVIOR 
Tue Messtranic DEATH f y m 


PAGE 


104 


Et? 
140 


171 


196 
228 
257 
275 


etd 





THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


“His visage was so marred more than any man, and his 
form more than the sons of men.” 


Ismah III, 14. 


THE SELF-DISCLOSURE 
OF JESUS 


CHAPTER I 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE MESSIANIC 
CONSCIOUSNESS 


One of the most significant developments in modern dis- 
cussion of the life and teaching of Jesus is the growing dis- 
favor into which the Messianic element in the Gospels has 
fallen with a certain class of writers. We do not refer to 
scepticism or denial in regard to the reality of Jesus’ Messiah- 
ship, objectively considered. The question whether or not 
Jesus was the Messiah has meaning only within the limits of a 
strict Biblical supernaturalism. It presupposes the recognition 
of the supernatural provenience of both prophecy and the ful- 
filment of prophecy, and therefore finds its proper place in 
the controversy between Jesus and his opponents in the Gos- 
pel narrative, as also it has been the dividing issue ever since 
between the Christian Church and Judaism. With the modern 
Jew, on the other hand, who has lost his belief in the super- 
natural, it were foolish to argue about the fact of Jesus’ Mes- 
siahship. On his premises the unreality of this fact is a priori 
included in the impossibility of all supernatural phenomena. 

The question about the Messianic consciousness belongs to 
a totally different situation. It deals exclusively with the prob- 
lem, whether Jesus believed and claimed to be the Messiah. 
Those who incline to answer it in the negative do not, as a 
rule, occupy the standpoint of supernaturalism. They are like 
the modern Jew in this respect, that for them the Messianic 
reality is an impossible thing, and in so far void of practical 
interest. From a religious point of view Jesus is not valuable 

il 


12 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


to them in the capacity of Messiah, but under some other as- 
pect, variously defined, be it as a religious genius, or an ethical 
teacher, or a social reformer. One might expect from this 
theological detachment that such writers would be peculiarly 
fitted to discuss the question of the Messianic consciousness on 
a purely historical and psychological basis, after the most calm 
and disinterested fashion, since, whichever way the balance of 
evidence may incline, the result should not affect nor disturb 
them in their inner religious conviction. The expectation is 
not verified. Toa careful observer of the trend of discussion 
it soon becomes apparent that something warmer and more 
exciting than an average academic interest is animating those 
who take part in it. Although the arguments plied to and fro 
are of a strictly exegetical and historical character, it is un- 
deniable that the heart “which makes the theologian” is not so 
wholly absent from the debate as some would have us believe. 

How is this controversial atmosphere which colors the dis- 
cussion to be explained? The explanation is not far to seek. 
Absolute disinterestedness in regard to Jesus is possible only 
where one has lost all religious touch with Him and denies to 
Him all significance in the sphere of his own spiritual life. So 
long as any personal religious attachment to Jesus, of how- 
ever attenuated a kind, is retained, the questions and problems 
centering around his Person can not wholly lose their signifi- 
cance. No one who prizes the name of Christian can dismiss 
Jesus absolutely from his field of religious vision, ‘There is 
always some category of preeminence or leadership under which 
He ts classified. Hence the live theological issues are bound 
to assume Christological form, and that a form which at no 
point is purely theoretical without practical bearings. But, if 
this be true in general with reference to all the elements and 
phases of the Christological question, it becomes far more 
pointedly true when the self-consciousness of Jesus is brought 
into the debate. Here all these objective issues mirror them- 
selves, as it were, in the mind of Jesus. And, that being the 
case, they acquire an intensified practicalness for the religious 
life. Here lies the focal point in which all rays of religious 
contemplation of Jesus and communion with Jesus have to 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 13 


meet, and whence they derive their reflection. The controversy 
ceases to be a controversy about Jesus. It becomes a testing- 
out of the practical experiment of getting into the presence of 
Jesus at all and having religious converse with Him face to 
face. We confess to not altogether liking the word “‘conscious- 
ness’ in connection with Christology. Not seldom it is ex- 
ponential of the view, that Jesus possesses his importance and 
wields his power by thought and teaching rather than by nature 
and action. Asa piece of the movement towards the interiority 
of Jesus, it is dangerously akin to the large modern trend to- 
wards placing all essentials and values of religion in the sub- 
jective sphere, detaching them from outward norms and forces. 
But this is an abuse and not a legitimate use of the conception. 
Jesus most assuredly had a vocational consciousness of self. 
Provided we can ascertain its content, and this we believe to be 
feasible, this consciousness becomes of eminently strategic im- 
portance. For if it be once seen in the sign of Messiahship, no 
long argument is required to show why this must be so. The 
Messianic consciousness is of a peculiarly unifying and com- 
prehensive character. It might in this respect be compared to a 
single-track mind. All.else entering into it is inevitably held 
in subordination and subservience to its one regnant purpose. 
It straightway assumes dominance in the mental world wherein 
it has once found lodgement. The Messianic concept has a 
long history behind it, and has in the course of time become 
subject to variations in content, but at no time has it allowed 
of relegation to a subordinate place in the mind of one regard- 
ing himself as fulfilling it. Now, looked at from this stand- 
point, the Messianic consciousness proves a most delicate sub- 
ject to handle for all desiring to crystallize their religion in 
various attitudes towards Jesus. Can religious communion 
exist with a mind thus Messianically synthetized, if the Mes- 
sianic synthesis proves uncongenial or even objectionable to 
the mind seeking such communion? Difference in theoretical 
scientific outlook, we are often told, need not preclude the 
sympathy and oneness in feeling and aspiration which many de- 
sire to continue cultivating with Jesus. Let this for the mo- 
ment be granted. The core of the question is: Can this be 


14 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


carried to the extent of emancipation from what was in Jesus 
the center of his self-consciousness? If we may judge from 
the analogy of interhuman fellowship in such forms as love 
and friendship, it must seem impossible to answer in the affirma- 
tive. For, though differences of opinion can exist with refer- 
ence to outside matters, yet, even apart from religion, com- 
munion finds it hard to survive, so soon as the difference of 
opinion begins to touch the inner life, and particularly that 
point of the inner life where the self-estimate sits upon the 
throne. As soon as this happens, the very basis of spiritual 
fellowship becomes endangered. The central point upon which 
it is exercised loses transparency and accessibleness; there is 
created a dark area where the love or friendship finds its limit. 
But to a far stronger degree it must be so with every religious 
attitude towards Jesus. In the religious sphere all spiritual 
powers acquire a heightened sensitiveness and develop a desire 
for absolute possession and interpenetration. How halting 
and inwardly disrupted a religious approach to Jesus must be 
which feels bound to stop short of accepting and receiving 
Him at the face-value of his central self-estimate! In the 
same proportion that one hesitates so to receive Him, a prin- 
ciple of reserve enters into the spiritual converse; the circles of 
the subject and the object intersect and no longer perfectly 
coincide. No one can take a Savior to his heart in that abso- 
lute unqualified sense which constitutes the glory of religious 
trust, if there persists in the background of his mind the 
thought that this Savior failed to understand Himself. If 
once it be established that He meant to be that very definite 
kind of spiritual helper which by historical right we designate 
as “‘the Messiah,” then how shall one refuse his help in that 
very capacity, and force upon Him a role of religious helpful- 
ness which He was not conscious of sustaining. The inherent 
perverseness of such a situation in a field where everything 
ought to be straightforward lies on the surface. How so many 
modern minds can habituate themselves to it is one of the 
strangest riddles in the pathology of religion. 

We believe that the doubt cast upon the Messianic conscious- 
ness springs not seldom from an inner dislike of it, and that 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 15 


the dislike springs largely from an instinctive perception of its 
unsuitableness and unmanageableness as a correlate to those 
other forms of approach in which the “liberal” religion delights. 
We do not mean that there is anything intentional about this 
process, nor that the critical treatment of this element in the 
Gospel-tradition evinces a conscious desire to manipulate the 
facts in the interest of a foregone conclusion. Instances of 
such a procedure are fortunately rare in the history of Gospel 
criticism. But what does not work consciously may yet be 
controlled by unconscious tendencies and predilections. One 
can not help feeling that there is a certain uneasiness perceptible 
in the treatment afforded this particular subject. Two consid- 
erations incline to this. In the first place the objective argu- 
ments of a historico-critical nature adduced against the reality 
of this consciousness are of themselves so inadequate as to 
suggest that theological proclivities make their weight appear 
greater to those who handle them than it actually is. So much 
more and so much of a more cogent character can be urged in 
favor of the opposite view that one involuntarily looks for 
something back of the arguments per contra to account for the 
confidence placed in their sufficiency. And, in the second place, 
the actual content of the Messianic consciousness is such as to 
be exceptionally calculated to provoke reaction of protest from 
the “modern” or “liberal” religious mind. It would be difficult 
to find a case where two ways of thinking and feeling appear 
so pointedly at variance, and have so little in common as the 
Messianic way of thinking, on the one hand, and the thought- 
form of “liberal”? Christianity on the other. A brief analysis 
of the Messianic concept, we trust, will suffice to show this. 

In making this analysis we are not thinking of accessory 
elements or accidental shadings and colorings, but only of what 
is essential to the thing itself, that without which it could not 
have existed in any mind, and not, therefore, in the mind of 
Jesus. Among these ingredients stands foremost the regal, 
authoritative note. The religious mentality centering in the 
Messiahship is necessarily one of absolute submission to a rule 
imposed from above. We do not, of course, mean by this 
“legalism’’ in the technical sense of that term. Legalism is a 


16 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


peculiar kind of submission to law, something that no longer 
feels the personal divine touch in the rule it submits to. Balden- 
sperger has placed over against each other Nomism and 
Apocalyptic as the two contrasting and contending forces in 
the mind of Judaism.* It has been rightly pointed out that 
such a distinction cannot be carried through cleanly. ‘There was 
an amount of legalistic leaven mixed up with Apocalyptic, and 
the Nomism representing the opposite pole was not altogether 
un-eschatological in its outlook. Nor was its reverence for 
the divine rule in every respect and in every quarter identifiable 
with “‘legalism.’’ Hence no reason can be given why the Mes- 
sianism of Jesus should, with all its apocalyptic affinities, not 
have harbored in itself the strong, acute sense of that responsi- 
bility to the divine will which was the noblest fruit of the Old 
Testament religion. Precisely in the Messianic concept this 
element finds supreme expression. The Messiah is the incarnate 
representation of that divine authoritativeness which is so char- 
acteristic of Biblical religion. It is not a later misdirected de- 
velopment that has made Christianity coherent under the 
formula of a “rule of faith and practice.” The normal start- 
ing-point for this is given in the Messianic function itself. 
Even the intense anti-legalism of Paul has by no means oblit- 
erated the normal validity of this principle. Nor was it by the 
Apostle intended to do so. The idea of intensification of divine 
authority is present in the oldest Messianic prophecies. The 
“Shiloh” of Gen. XLIX, Io is the One to whom the obedience 
of the peoples shall be given in a unique degree. And the figure 
arising out of Israel in the oracle of Balaam, Num. XXIV, 17, 
is that of One symbolized by sceptre and ruler’s staff. It is 
true the Messianic reference of both these prophecies has for a 
long time been under eclipse, but the trend of recent scholarship 
is towards its rehabilitation. Later on, when Messianism, of 
the family-circle of eschatology, becomes wedded to the Davidic 
house, there can no longer be any question as to the predomi- 
nance of the idea. Henceforward the Messiah is the King par 
excellence. King and Judge are in the prophetic delineation of 


1 Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der Messianischen 
Hoffnungen seiner Zeit, 1888. 


~ 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 17 


his figure practically synonymous. Nor does it need profound 
study of the life of Jesus to discover the vigorous exercise 
of this function in all his intercourse with his followers. The 
very conception of “following” can be understood from this 
background only. The solemn manner in which He puts his 
“T say unto you” by the side of, or apparently even over against, 
the commandment of God, goes far beyond the highest conceiv- 
able in the line of prophetic authority, Matt. V, 20-43. The 
verses 17-20 in this same chapter are by no means a Jewish- 
Christian accretion to the original Gospel, but in perfect con- 
sonance with the Messianic attitude of the speaker.* While 
distinguishing his precepts from those of Judaism as “light” 
and “easy,” Jesus still retains for them the figure of “burden” 
and “yoke,” and this is especially significant in view of the 
current phrase, “taking the yoke of the law upon one’s self,” 
which designated the passing of the young man under the full 
régime of the law. It is nothing but the deep-seated Messian- 
ism of Paul that makes him speak of “being under law to 
Christ,” I Cor. IX, 21. The Christless Gospel is perhaps some- 
times simply a product of the desire for a Gospel that shall have 
less of subordination in it. The overemphasis on the autonomy 
and spontaneity of Christian life may have contributed towards 
bringing the Messianic idea into disfavor. As in so many other 
instances, this would be a case of a principially irreligious 
tendency presuming to take to task and endeavoring to correct 
what is deeply religious. Such a sentiment, at any rate, is in 
line with the conception of the modern Jesus, from whom much 
of the spirit of authority has evaporated. But it would hardly 
be congenial to the mind of Him, who in the plerophory of his 


Messianic exousia spake the words of Matt. VII, 24-27. It 


does not lead toward, but away from the Christ. 

Less self-understood, but none the less important, is a second 
ingredient. The Messianic is at bottom a species of the 
eschatological. Although the name Messiah does not express 


2 It may now be considered as settled that the words, “not to destroy either 
the law or the prophets,” speak not of an idealizing perfection, but of an 
actual realization of the law in conduct. The context allows of no other 
exegesis. But even the function of “perfecting” the law or the prophets 
would postulate no less of Messianic authority. 


18 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


this, marking Him only as the Anointed King, yet He is to all 
intents the great final King, who stands at the close of the 
present world-order and ushers in the coming world. When 
we say that the Biblical religion is an eschatological religion, 
we mean that it ascribes to the world-process a definite goal 
such as can not be attained by it in the natural course of events, 
but will be brought about catastrophically through a divine in- 
terposition, and which, when once attained, bears the stamp 
of eternity. In the center of this eschatology-complex stands 
the Messiah. Ina system of developments going on indefinitely 
within the limits of the present state of things there is for Him 
no place. That we do not more clearly realize this is due to the 
fact that for us the Messiah has come and accomplished a part 
of his task, and yet what we call the “eschatological” crisis is 
still outstanding. But from the beginning it was not so. To 
the Old Testament point of view and the point of view of 
Jesus Himself, the coming of the Messiah signified consum- 
mation. Owing to the apocalyptic development through which 
the Messianic idea had passed, this identification of it with 
eschatological values had, if possible, become even more thor- 
ough than before. There may be a couple of Jewish Apocalyp- 
ses which confine the Messiah’s activity to the temporal scenes 
of the closing-up period, thus debarring Him from the world 
of eternity. But even here He derives his entire significance 
from the final things to follow; his activity belongs to the 
eschatological as the vestibule belongs to the house. And in 
the Christian representation no analogy for even this is to be 
found. Everywhere in the New Testament the Christ is, even 
as to his humanity, an eternalized figure whose redemptive 
significance is not subject to eclipse. Only the Pauline passage, 
I Cor. XV, 20-28, might seem to point in the opposite direction, © 
in so far as it sets a terminus for Christ’s kingdom of con- 
quest, and identifies the eternal state with the kingship of God, 
the Father. Yet it is precisely Paul, who most emphatically 
affirms the eternity-value and eternity-function of Christ 
through all the coming zons. Rom. V, 17; VIII, 29, 38, 39; 
XV, 49; Col. I, 13-16; III, 4. Nor would premillenarianism, 
though assuming a preliminary reign of Christ, think of this in 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 19 


uneschatological terms, or conceive of the eternal state as a 
de-Messianized state. The intensely eschatological atmosphere 
pervading the early Church is explainable on no other basis 
than that, with the appearance of the Messiah, the first act 
of the great drama of the end was believed to have been staged. 
That this was also a stable element in the consciousness of 
Jesus, modern research has made ever increasingly apparent. 
It is beginning to be recognized now in circles where the 
traditional liberal construction of Jesus had closed the eyes 
to it. Jesus being consciously the Messiah, his whole manner 
of thinking and feeling could not be otherwise than steeped in 
this atmosphere. It was an atmosphere in which the currents of 
air from this world and from the world to come constantly 
intermingled, with the stronger breeze steadily blowing towards 
the future. Only for those to whom this state of mind is a 
religiously congenial state can there be more than passing, 
superficial acquaintance with Jesus. 

‘There is a very important corollary of the eschatological 
complexion of Messianism, and of a religion determined by it, 
as early Christianity undoubtedly was. This concerns the 
“factual” structure of the N. T. religion, and of the O. T. 
religion too, for that matter. By “factualness’ we mean that 
the religious states of mind have in their subjective aspect no 
separate existence of their own, but entwine themselves around 
the outward acts of God, to which they are a response and by 
which they are cultivated in continuance. The subjective is 
nowhere lacking. On the contrary, it enters into the fabric 
of practical Christianity with exceptional richness such as no 
pagan form of piety can rival. But it always keeps in the 
closest touch with what God has done outside the subjectivity 
of the believer. The most instructive example of this is found 
in the cultivation of Abraham’s faith through the objective 


3 Jt remains the merit of the hyper-eschatologists to have created a new 
sense of the unique importance and pervasive significance of the eschatolog- 
ical strand in the consciousness and teaching of Jesus. Unfortunately this 
was done after a one-sided fashion. Jesus became a person obsessed by 
the eschatological complex, an eschatologist for the sake of eschatology, 
instead of what He really was, an eschatologist for the sake of God. Our 
_Lord’s interest in eschatology was religiously oriented in the deepest and 
most ideal sense of the word. 


20 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


promises and their objective fulfilment on the part of Jehovah. 
Now the consummate expression of this principle is seen in the 
eschatological outlook both backward and forward accom- 
panying Christianity from its very birth, and derived by it 
from its oldest ancestry. It is that which holds the religion 
of the Prophets and the religion of Jesus and the religion of 
Paul together, despite all apparent variations in particulars. 
And it is the one supreme criterion of what constitutes, histori- 
cally speaking, a Christian. It is the mother-soil out of which 
the tree of the whole redemptive organism has sprung. 

- Inseparable from the eschatological, however, there enters 
into the Messianic consciousness the further element of super- 
naturalism, The Messiahship is the most pronouncedly super- 
naturalistic conception in the whole range of Biblical religion, 
In virtue of its eschatological parentage it means not, and can 
not mean, the gradual evolving of higher conditions out of 
previously given potencies. On the contrary it means the 
creation of a new system of things. The oldest and most strik- 
ing formula for this is the distinction between the two ages or 
worlds. It is not one age or one world blossoming into an 
other, but an age or world of one nature being succeeded, nay, 
superseded, by an age or a world of a different nature. The 
second world or nature is, consequently, in relation to the one 
preceding it, supernatural, because other-natural. This bisection 
of all history is not, in explicit form at least, found as yet in 
the Old Testament, although as to substantial import it is there. 
The Messiah may appear in the line of succession of the Davidic 
dynasty, but it were a mistake to think that his accession to the 
realm will be after the ordinary quiet fashion of the average 
Judean King. The shoot out of the stock of Jesse and the 
branch out of his roots not only procures justice for the poor 
and the meek of the earth, and slays the wicked, but in his day 
returns the paradise-state that existed at the beginning: the 
wild devouring animals become tame; henceforth there is no 
more hurting nor destroying on the mountain of God, Isa. XT, 
1-9;L_LXV, 17-25. It needs no pointing out that such a restora- 
tion of the primordial harmonies does not come about without 
a tremendous world-shaking upheaval. That the Spirit appears 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE } 21 


as the agent producing this, can not in the least detract from 
the supernaturalism of the crisis, nor from that of the ensuing 
new state. It rather emphatically confirms this feature, for the 
Spirit is preéminently in such connections the source of the 
supernatural: when the Spirit is poured out upon the people 
from on high, the result is nothing short of a total reversal of 
existing conditions: the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and 
the fruitful field a forest, Isa. XXXII, 15. And from the 
crisis at the end this is inevitably carried back into the whole 
process culminating in the crisis. The idea of a prolonged un- 
supernaturalistic world history with a termination thoroughly 
supernaturalized would be a monstrous conception in which the 
body did not correspond to the head. The only normal thing 
here is the abnormal: the consummation must be preceded by 
an extended work full of equally supernatural transactions. - 
The supernatural is the “liebstes Kind” of eschatology. That 
such things are in the Old Testament expressed in figurative 
language justifies no one in de-supernaturalizing them. One 
lacking the sensorium for the supernatural can not but walk 
through them as the rationalist would walk through the scenes 
of a wonder-land. The Messiah is simply a nucleus, a focus 
of the supernatural. He carries it with Himself and eradiates 
it wheresoever He goes. And, if all this be true of the idea 
and of its Old Testament projection, how could we expect it 
otherwise in Jesus Himself? Asa matter of obvious fact He 
has fully absorbed this into his own consciousness. He knows 
the distinction between this world and the world to come.* 
And He knows it not only theoretically, but practically as well. 
Doubt in regard to the resurrection is to Him doubt in regard 
to the supernatural exercise of the power of God. Those 
worthy to attain unto “that age” are thereby put on an equal 
footing with the angels, their bodily nature being entirely 
changed. The miracles of the Gospels likewise come under 
consideration here. They are the appropriate supernatural con- 
comitants of the supernatural Christ, signs of the times He is 
introducing, and prophecies of the more radical, comprehensive 
change still to follow. Every scheme for bringing Jesus down 


4Cp., however, Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I, pp. 120-125. 


22 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


to the level of a man feeling at home in and drawing his in- 
spiration from the purely natural is bound to be, not merely a 
theological, but likewise a psychological failure, so long as the 
Messianic setting of the life is retained. A superficial reference 
to the parables of the mustard-seed and the leaven is surely not 
sufficient to outweigh the overwhelming impression every simple 
reader of the Gospels receives of the supernaturalism envelop- 
ing the story as a whole. So well is this felt that sometimes, 
by way of a desperate last resort, appeal is had to the Fourth 
Gospel, and passages quoted from it are adduced as evidence 
for the existence of an evolutionistic strain in the mind of 
Jesus. It is possible to do this because the Fourth Gospel has 
such a vivid conception of the present, immanent operation of 
the Christ-life and the Christ-power. But what is of present 
existence, and working within, is not thereby made subject 
to the law of natural evolution. Instead of things being nat- 
uralized and made less other-worldly here, it would be more 
accurate to say that the eschatological-supernatural appears in 
John in its highest potency, inasmuch as, turned backward, it 
draws the entire ante-mortem life of the believer into the 
sphere of its transforming influence. Sometimes a text like 
Jno. X, 10 is quoted with evolutionistic intent, but how mis- 
leading this is a simple comparison with the principial state- 
ment of VIII, 23 will show. Than the latter there is no more 
anti-evolutionistic representation of Jesus and his provenience 
conceivable. The life is indeed in the world and in the be- 
liever, but it is being sunk into them from above. It came to- 
gether with Him who is the supernaturalism of heaven in- 
carnate. And what is true of the Messianic concept of the 
Gospels is true in an even more pronounced sense of the Christ- 
figure of Paul, and for that matter, of the remainder of the 
New Testament. To Paul Jesus is the One from heaven, 
the Second Adam, the prototype of the heavenly image be- 
lievers are to receive in the resurrection. The robe of the 
supernatural with its folds of splendor envelops Him, and it is 
everywhere presupposed that He was conscious of wearing it 
while on earth, and continues to wear it in heaven. Every 
attempt to penetrate back of this to an unsupernaturalistic core 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 23 


of Jesus’ personality must prove from the nature of the case 
religiously futile. To desupernaturalize the consciousness of 
Messiahship in Jesus means to unfit Him for being the re- 
cipient of any truly religious approach from man. Jesus was 
not a Person, the center of whose thought lay in the natural 
relation of man to God, with a little fringe remaining upon Him 
from the outworn garment of apocalyptic. He lived and moved 
and had his being in the world of the supernatural. The 
thought of the world to come was to Him the life-breath of 
religion. Such a mind will not fit into the humanitarian ideal- 
ism of which the “liberal” theology would make Jesus the ex- 
ponent. It would amount to his having to divest Himself of 
his own religion first in order to become the field for another 
religion to play upon. What underlies the aversion to the idea 
of Messiahship in this respect is simply the desire to get rid 
of the large bulk of supernaturalism the Messiah trails in his 
wake. It is interesting to observe how this motive has asserted 
itself and put in its work along closely parallel lines in both Old 
Testament and New Testament criticism. There are not a few 
Old Testament critics, who believe that the Messianic hope 
can not have formed part of the teaching of the great ethical 
prophets of Israel, and this on the ground of its being inherently 
bound up with magical, miraculous, we would say supernatural, 
processes, whereas the interest of these prophets is supposed to 
have centered in moral movements dependent on an appeal to 
and a response from the free will of man. It is in both cases 
the naturalism of the modern way of thinking that seeks to 
expel the supernaturalism of the old and, historically consid- 
ered, only possible view. And in both cases the strategic posi- 
tion of the latter is reconnoitred and attacked in the idea of 
Messiahship. 

The next component element in the Messiahship is what for 
convenience’ sake may be called the “‘soteric’” element. The 
Messiah stands for salvation, indeed “Savior” is the most popu- 
lar name by which the Christ has come to be known among his 
followers. This saving aspect of the Messiah’s work is in- 
separable from his vocation. Nor is this a later idea, grafted 
upon the ancient stock through the Hellenistic custom of giving 


24 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the “Soter’’-name to living or dead deified rulers. It is in- 
digenous in the Old Testament stock itself. Without the hope 
of salvation to be wrought through Him the greater part of the 
Messiah’s reason of existence would fall away. In the great 
prophecies, Isa. IX; X1; Mic. V; Zec. IX, this feature stands in 
the foreground. It might be said, perhaps, that on account of 
its martial associations such a note could not possibly have 
found an echo in the mind of Jesus. His mind was a mind of 
peace, not a mind of war. But the objection overlooks that the 
martial element is, not even in the Old Testament, of the com- 
plexion frequently ascribed to it. There is a perceptible differ- 
ence between the character it bears in later Judaism and its 
character in the older prophecy. To be sure, the martial set- 
ting could not be entirely absent from the latter, for that 
belongs to the ancient traditional form of the conception, cp. 
Gen. XLIX and Num. XXIV. But, even though the setting 
be retained, the emphasis is increasingly shifted from the mili- 
tary exploits of the Messiah’s followers to the miraculous, 
almost silent, operation of the Messiah Himself. According to 
Isa. IX, on his great day, as in the day of Midian, yoke and 
staff and rod of the oppressor are broken, but it is Jehovah 
who breaks them, and the battle-scene remains in the dim back- 
ground. Still clearer is the elimination of the war-like aspect in 
Isa. XI. Here the earth is smitten with the rod of the Mes- 
siah’s mouth and the wicked are slain with the breath of his 
lips. In Mic. V, He stands and feeds his flock in the majesty of 
the name of Jehovah, his God, and is great unto the ends of the 
earth, but when the Assyrian invasion is to be repulsed, this 
task, perhaps in order to detach it from the military apparatus, 
is devolved upon “‘the seven shepherds and eight principal men.” 
Zechariah depicts the King as “just and having salvation: lowly 
and riding upon an ass”; chariot and horse and battle-bow are 
cut off, and the Messiah speaks peace to the nations. It would 
almost seem as though the martial features of the delineation 
had been relegated back to Jehovah so far at least as they have 
not been spiritualized out of existence. It would be a very 
wrong inference, however, that with the gradual changing of 
the form the substance of the saving character of the Messiah 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 25 


had been eliminated. Side by side with the supernatural execu- 
tion by rod of mouth and breath of lips stands in Isa. XI the 
judging of the poor and meek of the earth. And the rider upon 
the animal of peace in Zechariah comes with salvation. Per- 
haps the Old Testament picture was not so unfit for assimilation 
by Jesus as is alleged to be the case. It ought to be noticed 
that Jesus by no means discards the imagery and vocabulary of 
conquest in connection with the Messianic program. Only He 
lifts it to a higher plane. The powers to be conquered are not 
political; they belong to the world of spirits. In connection 
with Satan and the demons the consciousness of bringing de- 
liverance is retained without the least impairment.° The ex- 
orcism of demons and the healing miracles are liberating acts, 
and as such form part of the general Messianic deliverance. 
Jesus claims to have been sent for the purpose of performing 
them, Matt. XI, 2-6; Lk. IV, 18, 19. It can be hardly subject 
to doubt any longer that Jesus looked upon this world of miracu- 
lous deliverance, which, wherever He went, He carried with 
Himself, as in the strictest sense objective. It did not consist 
of acts that anybody apart from Him could perform. 
Wherever it is delegated to others, it is delegated in virtue 
of Messianic authority, Mk. XVI, 17, 18. The gospel of this, 
that is the good tidings of the realisation of these things prom- 
ised in prophecy, He must bring to every city, Lk. IV, 43. 
To Him the thought of his Messiahship would have been un- 
thinkable without this. The benevolent aspect of these works 
is not, of course, absent, but from a mere humanitarian desire 
to do good they can not be explained. John the Baptist is sup- 
posed to be able to draw from them the sure conclusion that 
Jesus is “the One to Come,” and that no one else need be 
waited for, Matt. XI, 3. We find, therefore, that Jesus placed 
upon the Messianic consciousness, which without a residue 
filled his mind, a solid soteric interpretation of the most realistic 
kind. It did not bear the modern, diluted sense of being a 
source of helpfulness to men by example or sympathy alone, 


__5 This is something totally different from the “spiritualisation” which the 
idea has been made to undergo in the “liberal” interpretations of the con- 
sciousness of Jesus. There the essence of the idea is sacrificed. 


26 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


or in some other similar way. He was a Savior as no one else 
could be, and into this flowed all the powers of his Messianic 
life. According to uniform usage of the New Testament, 
Gospels no less than Epistles, “to save’’ means, when applied 
in a spiritual sense, to rescue from the judgment and to intro- 
duce into the blessedness of the world to come.® But this old 
solid idea of salvation, the basis of all “evangelical” religion, 
has become an offense to the modern mind in many quarters. 
Whilst the terms “Savior” and “‘salvation’’ are not discarded, 
the substance of the transaction is entirely abandoned. In 
every possible way it is attempted to free the Jesus of the Gos- 
pels of this antiquated, “magical” idea of salvation, and make 
Him the exponent of the new Pelagian evangel of “uplift.” 
There is but one radical way of doing this, and that is by strip- 
ping Jesus of his Messianic character. The moment this falls 
from off Him, the distasteful soteric notions of atonement, re- 
generation, and whatever belongs to this circle of ideas, disap- 
pear with it one and all. They are enucleated in their Mes- 
sianic root. And here also the Old Testament parallel is inter- 
esting. Among the motives that have led to the denial of the 
genuineness of some of the greatest eschatological prophecies 
has been the feeling that the ideas of free grace and super- 
natural transformation, so prominent in them, are out of keep- 
ing with the intensely ethical spirit of the prophets. It is noth- 
ing else but the Pelagian view of religion seeking to dislodge 
the Augustinian view from its double stronghold in prophecy 
and Gospel. But practically all this anti-soteric effort can have 
but one result. It is bound to raise an unsurmountable barrier 
between the historical Jesus and the refusers of his supreme 
gift. As He is entirely and every moment intent upon thus 
imparting Himself, every communion assumed to be operating 
on an other, unsoteric, basis is a pseudo-communion, impossible 
on psychological grounds alone. | 

Lastly the Messianic consciousness is most intimately inter- 
woven with the specifically religious position the Messiah oc- 
cupies between God and man. It includes at bottom his right 
to receive worship and his identification with God. These 


6 Wagner in Z. f. N. T. W., 1905. 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 27 


highest of claims are inseparable from it. To be sure, it must 
be acknowledged that at this point the conjunction of the one 
with the other is of a somewhat different nature than in the 
case of the ingredients previously examined. There the con- 
ception of Messiahship, analytically considered, of itself yielded 
the elements in question. The title to deity and consequent 
worship are not given with the Messiahship as such. In the 
abstract a type of Messiahship is conceivable that could dis- 
pense with them. In the Messiah construed after the Jewish 
pattern, a royal leader and conqueror in the conflict with the 
pagan power, and subsequently the peace-bringing regent over 
the people of ‘God, there is nothing postulating deity or recep- 
tion of worship from those over whom He is appointed. His 
position would be close to God, but it would at every point 
in his career, even the highest, remain distinctly marked off 
from the prerogatives of the Godhead as such. But we are 
not dealing with Messiahship in the abstract. Our concern is 
with that specific type of the office which is present in the con- 
sciousness of Jesus. Here the indispensableness of strictly 
divine prerogatives in order to the adequate exercise of its 
functions springs into view. This is due to the thorough 
spiritualizing the idea has undergone in the mind of Jesus. 
So long as the Messiah’s task is conceived as lying in the sphere 
of external, national, earthly kingship and salvation it re- 
mains possible to regard Him as the representative of God 
without investing Him with divine attributes. But when his 
function comes to lie in the sphere of spiritual relationship to 
God, in those high regions where God touches the soul and 
the soul touches God, then his calling immediately places Him 
in the center of the field where the forces of religion play. 
The directness and immediacy pertaining to every true exer- 
cise of religion in the ethereal Christian sense render it im- 
perative that He shall Himself belong to the category of the 
divine. Otherwise our communion with God would be inter- 
cepted and diverted by Him to the impairment or nullification 
of it as a religious act. It will perhaps be said that the propo- 
' sition just laid down: no Messiahship without deity, no con- 
sciousness of Messiahship without consciousness of deity, can 


28 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


not be reversed. In the abstract this is true. It is logically 
quite possible to affirm the deity of our Lord, and his con- 
sciousness thereof, and yet to deny his Messianic character 
and his consciousness in regard to it. But practically this is 
a negligible concession. The cases will be rare, if any exist, 
where men are believers in the true deity of our Lord, and 
yet draw back from affirming his Messianic office and state 
of mind. Such cases are oddities in the world of doctrinal 
thinking and of religious experience. Their place is in mu- 
seums, not in the out-doors of living faith, When faith has 
taken the infinitely greater leap of affirming the deity of Jesus, 
it can only by a queer perversity of mind hesitate to take the 
smaller one of affirming his Messianic character. ‘The best 
confirmation of this lies in the fact that the deniers of the 
Messianic consciousness do not assume this position, because 
they have to offer something higher and more inclusive, which 
would render the Messiahship superfluous as an item of faith. 
They do so because they wish to substitute something lower 
and less difficult to believe. We are not asked to cease calling 
Him the Christ, because after calling Him Lord and God we 
could not possibly do more. What we are asked to do is this, 
to drop the name Christ, because He shall suffice us as an ex- 
ample, a teacher, a leader, a point of departure in religion. 
And, because it is awkward to receive Him at this lower value 
with the historical fact staring one in the face that He Him- 
self thought it necessary to offer Himself at an infinitely higher 
value, therefore it is inconceivable that the Messianic conscious- 
ness should be allowed its place in Jesus’ life without molesta- 
tion. The whole innate trend of modern religious thinking is 
against its recognition. It has become, though for different 
reasons, what it was to the Jews of our Lord’s lifetime, the 
great skandalon, which produces, not the rejection of his Mes- 
siahship only, but ultimately the rejection of Jesus Himself. 
By the foregoing process of reasoning the impression may 
have been created as if the conjunction of the divine and the 
Messianic elements is a purely logical one. Nothing could be 
farther from the truth. It appears in the record as approached 
from an eminently practical point of view. From the intensi- 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 29 


fied experience of the Messianic at its highest spiritualized 
moments the conviction of the divine forces itself upon the 
disciples. The pathway of theological inference here coincides 
exactly with the pathway of religious experience. It is through 
the Messianic majesty of Jesus that the glimpses are caught 
of that even more transcendent glory we have learned to rec- 
ognize and worship as his deity. This is not denying, of 
course, that there were occasions when the divine nature re- 
vealed itself directly without the intermediary vehicle of the 
Messianic function. But these are, as we shall see, rather the 
exceptions than the rule. That is precisely the reason why the 
divine in Jesus plants itself squarely in our pathway, when the 
moment for dealing with Him religiously is upon us. As a 
matter of logical deduction one might perhaps presume to brush 
it aside. When it comes in the form of a religious conde- 
scension by Jesus in his saving function brought to bear 
upon us, then to refuse utilizing it is more than unbelief, it is 
an impertinence offered to Jesus at the moment when He can 
lay highest claim to our reverence and gratitude. 

The contrasting viewpoints above outlined have only grad- 
ually become clarified through a long history of discussion. 
In the womb of the modern biographical and historical occupa- 
tion with the life of Jesus lay from the beginning, like twin- 
embryos, a principle of humanitarian idealism and a principle 
of eschatological realism. These two were incompatibles, but 
for forcing this fact upon the modern mind two things were 
necessary. On the one hand the liberalizing transformation of 
the character of Jesus had to have time for development up 
to a certain point of maturity, enabling it to provoke reaction 
from the opposite side. On the other hand, the figure of the 
eschatological-Messianic Jesus had to be sculptured out with a 
degree of realism that would compel recognition of its pres- 
ence as a potent, in fact as the dominating, factor in the Gospel- 
drama. So long as either of the two processes were uncom- 
pleted, the antagonism of the two principles remained latent. 
It was, however, the realistic-eschatological element that suf- 
fered its eclipse in the earlier period. The Messianic was sup- 
posed to have lain more or less on the periphery of Jesus’ 


30 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


mind; no sufficient vitality was ascribed to it to endanger the 
other ideals in his consciousness which the liberals had par- 
ticularly at heart. This attitude proved all the more easy and 
natural, because the humanitarian idealism had laid hold upon 
the eschatological-Messianic ingredients in the Gospel record 
themselves and fashioned them to its own liking. Inwardly 
denaturalized, “the other Jesus” lacked the strength to reveal 
and assert his true nature. Thus the open conflict was for a 
long time averted, since of the two portraits the one that was 
favored had in a measure assimilated the other to itself. There 
had been produced a quasi-Messiah, whose specific conscious- 
ness was limited to feeling Himself perfect in the ethico- 
religious sphere and to the sense of vocation for imparting the 
same character to others. Even so robust a figure as that of 
the Messianic Son-of-Man retained under this treatment only 
a minimum of Messianic appearance. But, while this was 
retarding the open outbreak of the conflict, the antagonistic 
forces were in the meanwhile silently gathering strength. In — 
due time attempts began to be made to render the eschatolog- 
ical safely innocuous through its resolute removal from the 
authentic record. Colani (1864) and Weiffenbach (1873) 
distinguished in “the great eschatological discourse,” towards 
the close of the Gospels, a hortatory address uttered by Jesus 
in view of the foreseen judgment to be visited upon Jerusalem 
and what they called “the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse”; with 
the latter Jesus had nothing to do.” With Volkmar (1882), 
in every respect the most acute and farsighted of the liberal 
school of critics, anticipating by his reasoning, sometimes even 
as to startling details, the later epoch-making skepsis of Wrede, 
we are at last face to face with the comprehensive denial of 
the historicity of the eschatological-Messianic strand of thought 
in the mind of Jesus.*. The whole thing, not excluding the 
Messianic Son-of-Man figure arose according to him under 


7 Colani, Jésus-Christ et les Croyances Messianiques de son temps. Weif- 
fenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu. Here the idea of the return of 
Jesus is equated to the idea of the resurrection. Strangely enough, it is 
not perceived how ill the thought of the resurrection fits into an uneschatol- 
ogized frame of mind, such as the writer ascribes to Jesus. 

8 Volkmar, Jesus Nazarenus und die erste Christliche Zeit, mit den beiden 
ersten Erzahlern. 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 31 


the influence of the later Christian dogma, from which 
source it then invaded the thought-world of Judaism. What 
remained for the historical Jesus (for in this respect Volkmar 
stays behind the subsequent position of Wrede, that he still 
believes in a historical Jesus with determinable features) is 
this, that Jesus desired to be a mere reformer, the spiritual 
deliverer of the people of God, to realise upon earth the King- 
dom of God which all were seeking in the beyond, and to ex- 
tend the reign of God over all nations. This note of universal- 
ism is, of course, out of place in a deéschatologized construc- 
tion, for, historically speaking, universalism belongs to the 
circle of Messianic ideas. But, apart from that, a state of 
mind more remote from the Messianic state of mind is scarcely 
conceivable. In Volkmar’s case the preferential treatment 
given by most critics to the Gospel of Mark, as more faithfully 
reflecting than the others the true character and course of de- 
velopment of Jesus’ life, had something to do with his repudi- 
ation of the elements in question, as it has in general smoothed 
the way for minimizing or expelling the Messianic idea, for 
in Mark there is comparatively little of discourse, and it is 
precisely in the Matthzan and Lucan discourse that the Mes- 
sianic obtrudes itself. And Volkmar was an enthusiastic cham- 
pion of the precedence and superiority of Mark. Still in the 
consequences drawn he continued to stand more or less iso- 
lated. Now, however, something more influential and de- 
cisive was approaching. As early as 1851 Dillmann, and in 
1864 Hilgenfeld had opened the door to the house of Jewish 
Apocalyptic.® At that juncture, to be sure, this did not seem 
to have any perceptible effect. When, however, Baldensperger 
on the basis of a comprehensive survey of the literature con- 
strued the Messianic consciousness of Jesus with the Son-of- 
Man title as its center, the situation was suddenly changed. 
Liberal idealism had so far been in the offensive, keeping back, 
or more and more forcing back, the eschatological-Messianic 
factor; the roles were now reversed. It was the merit of this 
writer to have compelled attention to the Messiahship of Jesus. 
That the proper reaction leading to a correction of the liberal 


®Dillmann, Henoch, Hilgenfeld, Jiidische Apokalyptik. 


32 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


position did not follow even now was due to a twofold cause. 
The first reason was that Baldensperger himself had not al- 
lowed his “rediscovery” of the Messianic Jesus to have its 
natural effect upon his own delineation of the latter. He still 
stood himself to such an extent under the influence of the 
liberalizing tradition as to modify after an unhistorical fash- 
ion the Son-of-Man concept, imparting to it an ethico-religious 
coloring strongly reminiscent of the school in which he had re- 
ceived his training and to which he did not venture to become 
disloyal. The second reason was that the liberal school at 
precisely this point made a desperate effort to retain the un- 
disputed ascendancy it had so far enjoyed, and which now 
threatened to slip from its grasp. This was done in the elabo- 
ration of the linguistic argument against the historical possi- 
bility of the title Son-of-Man. Lietzmann in a way neutral- 
ized the impact of Baldensperger’s views, even more than the 
latter’s own irresoluteness in carrying them through had done.*” 
After the flood of this linguistic discussion had receded, and 
through the work of Dalman and others the first flush of vic- 
tory given way to a feeling that after all nothing certain had 
been established and the battle proven a draw, the field was 
cleared for a renewed and this time more consistent offensive 
from the eschatological-Messianic side. This countermove is 
identified with the two names of Johannes Weiss and Albert 
Schweitzer.** Both broke thoroughly with the tradition that 
the center of Jesus’ self-consciousness had lain in the present 
time and in this present world. They boldly shifted it to the 
future and gave it the complexion of other-worldliness. This 
was done by both with impartial application to the idea of the 
Kingdom of God and to the idea of the Messiahship. Each of 
these lay for Jesus in the future and He had little of occupa- 
tion with the present in them. Weiss, however, proceeds more 
cautiously in his methods. Schweitzer, notwithstanding all his 
brilliancy and acumen, outdoes himself in a ruthless eschatolo- 
gizing of the life and consciousness of Jesus such as leaves no 


10 Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, 1806. 
11 Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu, vom Reiche Gottes, 1892, 2d ed. 1900, 
Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Engl.), 1910. 


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE 33 


room for undertones and shadings in the account. It goes 
without saying that such a procedure severs all connection be- 
tween the historical Jesus and the modern religious mind, which 
is so intensely engrossed by the present world. Schweitzer 
himself is too thoroughly modern not to acknowledge this 
openly, but at the same time too much of a “historicist” not to 
insist upon it uncompromisingly. So far as religion is con- 
cerned it was inevitable for a mind like his, after having run 
the entire gamut of eschatology to its very last note, to break 
with it as something that had figured in the mind of Jesus as a 
hopeless cause from the beginning and of necessity proven an 
utter disillusion to Himself at the close. The following sen- 
tences from his book reflect with a striking, but pathetic, clear- 
ness the conclusion into which for him the whole problem 
resolves itself: “The Messianic consciousness of the uniquely 
great Man of Nazareth sets up a struggle between the present 
and the beyond, and introduces that resolute absorption of the 
beyond by the present, which in looking back we recognize as 
the history of Christianity . . . Protestantism marked a step 
in that acceptance of the world, which was constantly develop- 
ing itself from within. . . . But it will be a mightier revolu- 
tion still when the last remaining ruins of the supersensuous 
other-worldly system of thought are swept away in order to 
clear the site for a new spiritual, purely real and present world. 
All the inconsistent compromises and constructions of modern 
theology are merely an attempt to stave off the final expulsion 
of eschatology from religion. . . . At that last cry upon the 
cross the whole eschatological supersensuous world fell in upon 
itself in ruins. . . . The Son of Man was buried in the ruins 
. . . there remained alive only Jesus the man.” Surely never 
a more desperate disavowal was made by a man of a con- 
ception he had pursued for its mystic loveliness all his life! 
If mankind must arrive at this, the judgment passed not only 
upon modern or liberal religion but upon all religion as such 
is nothing short of annihilating. Of what value is the service 
of a God, who, Himself eternal, confines his occupation with us 
to the little span of this pitiable life? This stands at the 
opposite pole of the conviction of Jesus, who protested to 


34 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the Sadducees of his time, that it would be unworthy of God 
not to reclaim from death Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, even as 
to their bodies, for the simple reason of his having declared 
Himself their God. But Jesus was a consistent eschatologist 
in the very core of his religion; He had grasped the thing as 
a thing without which religion ceases to exist. And still fur- 
ther, not merely religion as a business of eternal moment be- 
tween God and ourselves is at stake; only one degree less mo- 
mentous is the question what on such premises becomes of the 
business between Jesus and the “Christian.” Let Schweitzer 
himself again give us the answer: “The study of the Life of 
Jesus has had a curious history. It set out in quest of the his- 
torical Jesus, believing that when it had found Him it could 
bring Him straight back into our time as a Teacher and Savior. 
. . . But He does not stay; He passes by our time and returns 
to his own. What surprised and dismayed the theology of the 
last forty years was that . . . it could not keep Him in our 
time, but had to let Him go.”” Which is to say that the prom- 
ised recovery of the historical Jesus has turned out to be an 
eternal separation! He went, but, contrary to his own prom- 
ise, has not returned to us. After this, does it not sound like 
a futile resurrection of the old discredited liberal formula when 
Schweitzer tells us that “a mighty spiritual force proceeds from 
Him,” and that therein lies “the solid foundation of Christian- 
ity’? How does this differ from the “liberal” phraseology on 
which Schweitzer from the beginning to the end of his book 
pours out such contempt? The issue of thoroughgoing escha- 
tology could not be otherwise, because from the beginning it 
failed to distinguish between eschatology as a theological ob- 
session, and eschatology as the finest flower of religion culti- 
vated for the glory of God. The latter, not the former, it 
surely was for Jesus. And it was in Him as deep as his re- 
ligion itself.*? 


12 Cp., The Quest of the Historical Jesus, pp. 284, 307. 


Cuapter II 
THE DENIAL OF THE MESSIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS 


From the foregoing it will have become clear to us why the 
Messianic consciousness creates serious practical difficulties for 
what is usually called ‘modern liberal Christianity.” It gath- 
ers up in itself and brings to a head certain uncongenial, un- 
assimilable elements which trouble this type of religion in its 
employment of the figure of Jesus. And these elements bulk 
so large and are so omnipresent as to obstruct the pathway of 
approach at almost every point. The realisation of them tends 
to make the liberal movement of religion preferably a move- 
ment taking its departure from Christ and addressing itself to 
the world, rather than a movement seeking the Person of Christ 
in order to occupy itself with Him. A religion intended to be 
first of all centripetal has become alarmingly centrifugal. 
The discomfort artsing from this situation of having to attach 
one’s self to something which a change of position of the 
lense of religion has removed out of focus naturally drives 
to unusual critical measures of readjustment. Hence the con- 
certed action towards eliminating the Messianic consciousness. 

As might be expected in a subject so busily agitated there are 
many shadings of the suspicion entertained and of the denial 
registered. The following may be enumerated as entitled to 
separate, somewhat detailed, discussion. First, there is the 
position of outright denial of the historicity of the Messianic 
consciousness in Jesus. It not merely doubts its presence in 
his mind, but claims to be able to prove its absence therefrom. 
» Secondly, we have the agnostic position refusing self-commit- 
tal, and that not as a preliminary standpoint taken from mod- 
esty or in the interest of safety, but from the conviction of ab- 
solute unknowability. Its watchword might be said to be, 
“Tgnoramus et ignorabimus.” ‘The records are in such a state 


as to be useless for ascertaining the truth. Thirdly, a theory 
35 


36 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


_ of consciousness of prospective Messiahship has been formed: 
Jesus was conscious, perhaps intensely conscious, of his Mes- 
sianic vocation, but did not lay claim to the exercise of the 
function or to the enjoyment of its privileges during his life- 
time. These things were indeed in store for Him, but He had 
to await the pleasure of the Father for the moment of their 
bestowal. In the fourth place, a somewhat different compro- 
mise is offered in the hypothesis of a gradually developing con- 
sciousness of Messiahship in the mind of Jesus. He began his 
activity in an un-Messianic, simply-prophetic frame of mind. 
This He outgrew and received in the place of it the convic- 
tion of divine appointment to the Messianic office. This fourth 
view, it will be perceived, easily permits of combination with 
the third, because the self-interpretation Jesus grew into may 
well have been, though it need not have been, that of prospective 
Messiahship. It is conceivable that at first He only felt des- 
tined for the task, but equally conceivable that all at once He 
awoke to the sense of being in the midst of the discharge of 
it. Finally, as a fifth form, not to be sure of eliminating the 
Messianic consciousness from the mind of Jesus, but still as 
a means of minimizing its importance for Himself and us, the 
view is maintained that the Messiahship was for the religious 
life and work of Jesus no more than a formal thing, in no wise 
touching the essence of his permanent significance as the center 
of Christianity. 

Let us now proceed to examine these several views in order, 
both as to the arguments adduced in favor of them, and as to 
the criticism to be passed upon them. 

The theory of outright denial * appeals first of all to a cer- 
tain dualism alleged to exist in the Gospel tradition. There 
appear, we are told, in the tradition, side by side, two different 
strands, the one Messianic, the other un-Messianic, and that in 
the sense of the latter excluding every idea or consciousness of 
Messiahship. These two strands are, as we find them, closely 
interwoven, but critical skill and patience can disentangle them, 
without so injuring the texture of the un-Messianic strand as 


1 As three representatives of this view may be named Volkmar, Martineau 
and Nathaniel Schmidt. 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 37 


to rob it of its historical value. When criticism is brought 
to bear upon these two, the difference in point of historicity 
between them becomes immediately apparent. The Messianic 
material lies open to suspicion in many important respects. 
On the other hand the un-Messianic elements of the narrative 
evince themselves proof against all critical attacks. These 
must therefore be the original bedrock of the tradition, whilst 
the Messianic representation looks like a subsequently formed 
stratum. 

A second cause that has contributed to cast suspicion on 
the historicity of the Messianic element in the Gospels is con- 
nected with the title ““Son-of-Man.” This is the favorite self- 
designation of Jesus; indeed it is never put by the writers upon 
the lips of others concerning Jesus. Both by its frequency 
and manner of use this title seemed to belong to the very back- 
bone of the Messianic tradition. To this must still further 
be added that it is coupled in the Gospels with the highest and 
most unmistakably Messianic predicates. Hence to this name 
the revival of the appreciation of Jesus’ Messianic character, 
which took place during the latter part of the preceding cen- 
tury, largely attached itself. At first the intense occupation 
with the Apocalyptic literature by such a man as Balden- 
sperger looked towards the full recognition and evaluation of 
the Messianic character in the life of Jesus. It is one of the 
paradoxes in the history of modern New Testament science 
that the interest in the Messianic problem thus excited, and 
particularly the further study of the phrase ‘“Son-of-Man,” 
should have led to the opposite result of what the first stage 
of the movement seemed to. promise. ‘The investigation was 
soon shifted to the field of linguistics. The question was 
raised what could have corresponded in the vernacular of Jesus 
to the Greek phrase 0 vidg rod avSpanov, as found in the 
Gospels. Jesus spoke a dialect of the Aramaic language. 
And in the Aramaic idiom the phrase “‘son-of-man” was found 
to be a common, trite designation of the individual of the 
human species. It just means “a man,’ “somebody,” and there 
is nothing mysterious about it. Now, in view of this, the 
question arose, how a phrase of such general meaning as “man” 


38 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


could have been employed by Jesus as a characteristic self- 
designation. The conclusion reached was that He could not, 
and therefore did not, so employ it. ‘The titulation is un- 
historical, because linguistically impossible, on the lips of the 
Aramaic-speaking Jesus. How the titular use of it, in the 
face of this, nevertheless entered into the tradition and the 
Gospels remained a question by itself to which varying an- 
swers were given that do not at this point concern us. Our 
sole object here is to point out that the suspicion cast on the 
authenticity of this title struck to the minds of many a serious 
blow at the actual presence and operation of the Messianic 
factor in the life of Jesus. For it should not be forgotten 
that the frequency of this phrase in the Gospel-text or the tra- 
dition back of it, constituted the most weighty piece of evi- 
dence in support of the Messianic interpretation of Jesus by 
Himself. So much falling away, the entire structure seemed 
in danger of collapse. 7 

A third reason for the denial is found in the radical trans- 
formation the Messianic concept undergoes in the Gospels. 
The Messianic expectation and the national hope of Israel had 
previously been closely united. The Messiah was a national 
patriotic figure; to sever Him from Israel deprives Him of 
all significance. It is deemed historically inconceivable that 
Jesus should have entertained the idea of his Messiahship, and 
yet permitted the break between Himself and Israel to occur 
and develop after the manner described in the Gospels. Even 
if at the beginning of his career He had believed in his Mes- 
siahship, the progress of events, carrying Him and Israel fur- 
ther and further apart, must soon have disillusioned Him, and 
with his loss of every positive relation to his people the last 
remnant of faith in his Messianic vocation must have van- 
ished. This, however, is only an external incongruity be- 
tween the Messianic idea and the situation in which Jesus is 
placed by the Evangelists. A more fundamental impossibility 
is supposed to lie in this, that the Jesus of the Gospels makes 
out of the Messiahship something materially different from 
what it always had been. It appears transposed from the key 
of victory and power into the key of suffering and service. 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 39 


Its symbol becomes the cross. It is especially after the episode 
of Czesarea-Philippi that this new type of Messiahship emerges 
most distinctly. In the section of Mk. VIII, 27—X, 45, 
which Wellhausen with one of his striking phrases has called 
“the nest of the gospel,” it is claimed that this Christianizing 
transmutation of the Messiahship becomes most obtrusive. 
Such a thing can not be historical. The later paradoxical inter- 
pretation of the cross, with the peculiar dogmatic ideas crys- 
tallizing around it, has here been carried back into the life- 
time of Jesus. In the actual history such a construction would 
have moved like a phantom, out of all touch with surrounding 
scenes and events. The persons to whom it is ostensibly pre- 
sented would have been utterly incapable of apprehending it. 
The phenomena, however, are not confined to this one section 
of the Gospel-narrative. The Messiahship of Jesus almost 
everywhere bears the marks of passivity. And it is believed 
that the whole difficulty can be most easily removed by assum- 
ing that such a paradox never issued from the womb of actual 
history, but was the product of the dogmatizing occupation of 
the early Church with the tragic ending of the life of Jesus, 
which, in order to provide it with a halfway reasonable ex- 
planation, was forced into the ill-fitting garment of the Mes- 
sianic concept. 

The deepest reason, however, for the suspicion under which 
the Messianic consciousness has fallen lies in its alleged incon- 
cinnity with the ethico-religious character of Jesus. The diffi- 
culty is a psychological one. It is found hard to believe that 
in one and the same mind two such divergent ideals can have 
lodged together. Holtzmann, while not rashly yielding to the 
impulse of removing one of the two, has given striking ex- 
pression to the sense of their disharmoniousness in the follow- 
ing words: “One is made to feel, as though upon the fair fields 
of a world of wholesome moral renewal, there suddenly burst 
forth out of regions far removed from all actuality a scorching 
withering wind of Oriental frenzy, and it is this feeling that 
has lent countenance to various efforts, deserving serious con- 
sideration, to cut out the Messianic idea, as a diseased foreign 
body, from the otherwise healthful organism of the life of 


40 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Jesus and from the make-up of his preaching.” * The Jesus 
in whom liberal Protestantism finds its supreme ideal is the 
Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, the sublime self-forgetful 
altruist, the man of delicate tender sensibilities, who puts all 
the intensity of his interest in the problems of the subjective 
spiritual life of man, and treats all questions lying outside of 
this one thing needful with neglect or disdain. The more 
ethereal and idealistic the complexion of Jesus’ mind, the less 
would it have been likely to harbor dreams and hopes of such 
extreme and bizarre character as to expose it to the charge 
of bigotry. There is altogether too much self-consciousness, 
too much sense of self-importance inherent in the Messianic 
aspiration, to agree with the atmosphere of the Sermon on the 
Mount. Professor Schmidt has well formulated this feeling. 
In commenting on Matt. XI, 27, he observes: “Such an utter- 
ance is out of harmony with the admittedly genuine sayings of 
Jesus, and casts an undeserved reflection upon his charac- 
ter... How can the gentle teacher . . . be supposed to 
have imagined himself possessed of all knowledge, and re- 
garded all other men as ignorant of God?”’* That is to say, 
it is in the last analysis the humility of Jesus which rules out 
the Messianic consciousness. Moreover a model of religious 
sobriety and moral sanity, as this school loves to depict the 
Saint of Nazareth, must live and move and have his being in 
the present, not brood on the future. If obsessed by the 
thought that the fashion of this world quickly passes away, 
his ethical counsels are apt to become interimistic and per- 
functory. But of such half-heartedness no trace is found in 
Jesus’ teaching. He speaks about divorce and covetousness 
as though the present world-order, with its fight against sin 
and evil, were to continue indefinitely. Therefore the Mes- 
sianic obsession, which would inevitably have interfered with 
this ethical single-mindedness, can not have existed. The diffi- 
culty of believing otherwise is made all the greater by the fact 
that what the Gospels ascribe to Jesus is not a mild, subdued 
eschatological interest, but a most intense passionate absorp- 


2 Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I, p 
3 Nathaniel Schmidt, The Prophet . ‘Nazareth, p. 152. 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 41 


tion in the thought of the end. If the two principles of ethical 
idealism and of eschatological preoccupation can not dwell to- 
gether in peace then the surmise is warranted that the Mes- 
sianic consciousness was never actually there, but represents 
an element of later introduction on the part of the early Church, 
which carried back the storm and stress of its own conflicting 
emotions into the tranquil mind of Jesus. 

To the above statement of the grounds for denial of the 
Messianic consciousness we immediately subjoin our critique 
of their validity. The weakness of the argument drawn from 
the dualism in the tradition about Jesus lies in the subjectiv- 
ity of the tests applied. If it were possible to show that the 
Gospels, judged by objective criteria, easily divide themselves 
into an earlier and a later stratum, and then could be further 
shown that the earlier stratum, though determined without re- 
gard to the problem of Messianism, turned out to be free of 
the Messianic idea, whereas the later stratum happened to 
contain all the Messianic material, then, to be sure, a plausible 
case for the later origin of the Messianic delineation of Jesus 
would seem to have been made out. But along such objective 
lines no argument against the Messianic consciousness has been, 
nor can be, constructed. The average conclusions of Synopti- 
cal criticism do not in the least invite to it. As a matter of 
fact, the advocates of the view under discussion do not appeal 
to these. They do not seek support from the two-document hy- 
pothesis. The latter would at least have furnished them with 
an objective basis for ascertaining the earliest accessible tradi- 
tion from Mark and the Logia. But Mark, as they well per- 
ceive, does not, when compared with Matthew and Luke, show 
any appreciable approach towards the conception of an un- 
Messianic Jesus. Nor does the so-called Logia-source, recon- 
structed from Matthew and Luke, point in that direction. And 
the same still holds true, when out of Mark a more primitive 
document, the so-called ‘“Ur-Marcus,” is distilled. This ‘“Ur- 
Marcus” would not be one whit less Messianic than the fin- 
ished Mark. But, say some critics, the Messianizing reéditing 
must have taken place at an earlier stage of the process of 
tradition, before the literary stage was reached. This how- 


42 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


ever amounts to supporting by appeal to the unknowable what 
the knowledge of history is unable to verify. As a matter of 
fact the procedure of the critics in this matter is not an ob- 
jectively verifiable procedure at all. It depends on eliminating 
the Messianic indications in each case separately. ‘The critics 
operate from case to case, from passage to passage. ‘They 
seize upon one or the other detached phenomenon, rendering 
some incident or some saying suspected to their mind. ‘The 
phenomena thus seized upon vary in the individual cases. Such 
a procedure creates a strong presumption that the actual mo- 
tive determining the decisions springs from a preconceived 
antipathy to the Messianic evidence. In the last analysis not 
the Messianic element is ruled out because the passages criti- 
cized offer just ground for suspicion, but the passages are 
suspected, because the Messianic idea appears in them. The 
necessity of resorting to such various disconnected trains of 
reasoning tends to destroy confidence in the conclusion. Even © 
granting (what it is by no means necessary to grant) that in 
some instances considered by themselves a fairly plausible case 
has been made out, yet the number of instances it is necessary 
to get rid of, either by excision or by eliminative interpreta- 
tion, is so great as to weaken the argument as a whole most 
seriously. Besides, even with all this mass of material neu- 
tralized in one way or another, one can not help feeling that 
the Messianic spirit is still there in the Gospels, intangible 
perhaps, but none the less real. It is a spirit that will not be 
exorcized by tackling individual cases. His name is “Legio,”’ 
and he easily slips from one body into an other. The only 
method for effectually getting rid of him is by destroying the 
organism ‘2 which he dwells and which he pervades as the soul 
does the body. 

The second ground for denial is baleen from the linguistic 
impossibility that Jesus should in the Aramaic dialect which 
He spoke have called Himself “the Son-of-Man” in designa- 
tion of Messiahship, because the term “bar enash” in that and 
in the cognate dialects means nothing else but ‘‘a man,” and 
this does not lend itself for use as a title. We do not intend 
here to lose ourselves in a labyrinthine discussion as to what 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 43 


the title could or could not have meant in the mouth of Jesus. 
To this question we shall have to revert afterwards. How be- 
wildering and literally covered by confusing trails this part of 
the field is may be seen from the learned article by Nathaniel 
Schmidt in Vol. IV of the Encyclopedia Biblica. All we can 
attempt at this point is to make some observations that would 
seem to weaken the force of the linguistic argument. At the 
outset it should be acknowledged that the passage Dan. VII, 13, 
to which undoubtedly the phrase in the Gospels goes back, at 
least in part, does not contain it as a title. It is here simply 
a description of the visionary figure seen coming with the 
clouds of heaven. This figure was like “a son of man,’’ that 
is, “like a man.” To grant, however, that it is descriptive 
is not quite equivalent to granting that it is purely sym- 
bolical of the Kingdom of God, just as the beasts of vss. 
2-8 are claimed to be symbolic of the world-powers. Both 
contentions are inexact: neither the beasts nor the man-like 
figure symbolize the powers for which they stand directly. 
They do so only through symbolizing first of all the rulers of 
these several kingdoms. Hence it is said in the subsequent in- 
terpretation: “These great beasts, which are four, are four 
kings,’ vs. 17. The phrase “like a man” in like manner proxi- 
mately describes the King, although this does not, of course, 
exclude the possibility of the thus described King symbolizing 
the nature of the Kingdom He is to rule over. Wemay assume, 
then, that the Messiah is here actually introduced, that the 
phrase “like unto a man” is not a title, but a description of his 
appearance, and that through this description of his appearance 
He becomes collectively symbolical of the Kingdom of God. 
The collective symbolism is recognized; only it is not conceded 
to be an argument against the presence in the passage of a con- 
crete figure.* Nor can it be reasonably called in doubt that 


4A special reason facilitating the transition from the purely symbolic 
into the concretely descriptive of a single person lies in this, that the kings 
of the world-kingdoms are a succession of rulers and as such incapable of 
being represented otherwise than symbolically, whereas the Ruler over the 
Kingdom of God is One, without successors, so that to depict Him sym- 
bolically must mean at the same time to describe Him personally. The 
Messiah is always One and undivided. 

The best statement of the argument in favor of the personal-concrete 


44 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


this figure is the Messiah. The objection raised against this 
from vs. 18, where “‘the saints of the Most High” are said to 
receive the kingdom, is by no means conclusive. If it proved 
anything at all, it would prove that the author was not only 
un-Messianic, but that he was pointedly anti-Messianic in his 
eschatology. To allow kings for the world-powers and to leave 
the final rule of God kingless could hardly be interpreted on 
any other principle. And such an anti-Messianic program 
would have no analogy in the Old Testament. On the other 
hand, there are not a few prophecies which join together both 
Messianic and un-Messianic representations. In Isaiah escha- 
tological pictures of both types occur. The assumption by Grill, 
Schmidt, and others, that not the Messiah, but an Angel- 
Prince, the guardian of Israel, is meant, would be just as much 
subject to the objection mentioned, for he likewise receives no 
notice whatever in vs. 18. 

The important point for our purpose is that a concrete fig- 
ure is referred to. For, when the question is raised, how the 
transition came to be made from a descriptive phrase to a for- 
mal title, it makes some difference whether the descriptive 
phrase served the purpose of pure, collective symbolism or had 
back of it a concrete person. Obviously a descriptive phrase 
relating to a person would more easily change into a title than 
the mere symbol of a collective body. A point of departure 
for the change was furnished by the mysterious setting of the 
scene in Daniel itself. The feature of the figure resembling a 
man, if standing alone, might not have drawn attention to it- 
self. But when this figure like unto a man is seen coming 
with the clouds, i.e., in a theophany from heaven, the fact is 
striking enough to fasten the scene upon the memory, The 
man with such surroundings would easily become “the Man,” 
the peculiar man known from Daniel. At first the quotation- 
character would be consciously felt, but in course of time this 
might be lost sight of, and the abbreviated form, cut loose from 


character of the figure “like unto a son of man” in Daniel is found with 
Grill, Untersuchungen iiber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums, pp. 
55 ff. Grill, himself, comes to the conclusion that the figure meant is that 
of the angel, Michael, Israel’s celestial patron; so likewise Schmidt, The 
Prophet of Nazareth, p. 50. 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 45 


reminiscence of the circumstances of his first appearance, might 
become current. So, we say, it might have happened, but there 
is no reason to believe that the syncopating process reached 
its extreme point much before the time of Jesus. “The Man’ 
in the Gospels repeatedly appears in company with the clouds, 
which shows that the association with the Daniel-scene has not 
been obliterated. Then, with the Hellenizing of the phrase, 
introducing the double article, and thus adding mysteriousness 
and majesty by means of outward form, the process was com- 
pleted. But this last step was not necessary to produce the 
titular significance. In all probability the phrase meets us as 
a title earlier than the Gospel-history, viz., in the Parable- 
Discourses of the Book of Enoch, XXXVI-LXXI. Good 
critical authorities date these discourses from the last century 
before the Christian era. True, the hypothesis of Christian 
interpolations, striking at the very passages where the title 
“Son-of-Man” occurs, would rob the argument drawn from 
this quarter of all force. But, as Schtrer, a witness of weight 
on such subjects, has observed: ‘Nothing of a specifically 
Christian character is to be met with in this section.’’ In this 
document, Enoch is described as asking the interpreting Angel 
concerning “that son of man.” He receives the answer: This 
is “‘the son of man who has righteousness.’”’ The terms fur- 
ther applied to him leave no doubt about his being the Messiah. 
He is seated on the throne of the Lord of Spirits. He was 
hidden before, and the Most High preserved Him in the pres- 
ence of his might. The sum of the judgment is committed 
to Him, Chaps. XLVI; LXII; LXIX. Notwithstanding the 
difference that here “the Son-of-Man” functions as the judge, 
a feature lacking in Daniel, there can be no doubt as to the 
dependence of these various statements on the Daniel-passage, 
and we are consequently justified in the conclusion that to 
the author of these pieces in Enoch the figure in Daniel meant 
no one else but the Messiah.® 


5 Cp., Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 266: “Confronted 
with the Similitudes of Enoch, theologians fell back upon the expedient of 
assuming them to be spurious, or at least worked over in a Christian sense, 
just as the older History of Dogma got rid of the Ignatian letters, of which 
it could make nothing, by denying their genuineness.” 


46 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


In these sections of Enoch the phrase occurs in a twofold 
form, with the article, “the Son-of-Man,” and with a demon- 
strative pronoun, “that Son-of-Man.” In XLVI, 1, we meet 
first the description ‘‘as the likeness of a man,’ and next the 
enquiry about “that son of man,”’. vs. 2. In vs. 3 the relative 
clause “who has righteousness’? works to the same effect of 
seeming to make “son of man’ a generic noun for “man,” 
subsequently determined so as to mean one particular man, and 
the titular meaning of the phrase thus disappears. In XLVIII, 
2; LXIT, 5,9, 14; "LX crs LX eG es a 
the same pronoun “that’’ occurs. This has given rise to the 
view that perhaps the alleged development from descriptive 
phrase to title in Enoch rests on a misunderstanding. It has 
been suggested that in all the passages after XLVI, 1 there is 
nothing more than a backward reference to the first introduc- 
tion of the figure as “in the likeness of a man.” The transla- 
tion then ought to read “that man,” viz., that man previously 
shown. If this were correct, Enoch would not go beyond Dan- 
iel. In neither book would the phrase be a title of the Messiah, 
but simply a description of the figure seen, which may or may 
be not the Messiah in Daniel, and undoubtedly is the Messiah 
in Enoch. Of course, the joining of the demonstrative pro- 
noun to “son of man’ disqualifies it for forming a title. It 
is possible to say “that man,” but not possible to speak of “that 
Messiah.” So simple, however, the matter is by no means. 
For, side by side with “that son of man’ there are two in- 
stances of “‘the Son-of-Man.” Thus, even if it were to be 
granted that all the other references containing the pronoun 
were simply retrospective, and carried no further than a de- 
scriptive “like a man,” the problem of the exchange of this by 
“the son-of-man” in these two instances, LXII, 7 and LXIX, 
27, would still remain unsolved. And it would not be an im- 
plausible theory that here in Enoch we have before our eyes 
the very transmutation that made out of the description a title. 
Asa matter of fact the case for recognizing a title throughout, 
always with the exception of XLVI, 1, 2, stands better than 
might be inferred from the foregoing. The pieces dealt with 
exist in the A<thiopic language, and it has been of late suggested 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS AT 


that the A*thiopic pronoun “that” may be simply the trans- 
lation of the Greek article, so that in the Greek text under- 
lying the A¢thiopic all the passages would uniformly speak of 
“the Son-of-Man.” ° If this be correct the extra-Christian or 
pre-Christian appearance of the title would come to rest on a 
solid basis. And this would be of great value for those who 
believe the title to have been used by Jesus, as recorded in 
the Gospels. For, as above stated, the controversy revolves 
about the impossibility of such a generic phrase ever hav- 
ing done service as a title. If it did service as a title in 
the Aramaic milieu of the Parable Discourses, then in the face 
of the fact established the assertion of impossibility would 
lose all force. What could be done by the writer of the 
Parable Discourses could be done half a century, more or 
less, later, by Jesus. As for the linguistic argument, con- 
sidered on its own merits, none but experts in the philology 
of the Aramaic dialects can weigh with any degree of accuracy 
the data bearing on the matter in the existing literature of these 
dialects. Were the conclusions reached by these scholars uni- 
form, it would not be possible to deny them considerable 
weight, so far as the linguistic facts are concerned. Such 
uniformity, however, does not exist. Against Wellhausen and 
Lietzmann, deniers of the possibility that a title could be made 
of the most common word for “man,’’ Dalman, easily no less 
of an expert in Aramaic linguistics, holds both that “son of 
man’’ was a possible expression in the vernacular of our Lord’s 
time, and that by its very singularity it was adapted for use 
as a title. Fiebig, another authority in this line of research, 
reaches the conclusion that “the Son-of-Man,” or rather “‘the 
Man,” was in our Lord’s day a current title for the Messiah.’ 

If there are linguistic difficulties in explaining the occurrence 
of the two meanings of “man” and of “Son-of-Man”’ side by 
side in the same word, the theory of denial of the use of the 


8 Charles, Eschatology,2 Hebrew, Jewish and Christian, p. 261. 

7Gunkel, Z. W. Th., 1899, pp. 581-611, admits the possibility of Bar- 
nasa having simply meant ‘‘man” and nevertheless having been used as a 
self-designation by Jesus. Jesus had borrowed, he thinks, the mysterious 
term going back to Dan. VII, from the apocalyptic literature, putting into 
Pate meaning of “The Man of God” in contrast to the anti-christian “Man 
of Sin.” 


48 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


latter by Jesus causes no less of difficulty. In the Greek Gos- 
pels the phrase does occur as a title. This is not denied by 
anybody. So the problem arises how it underwent this change 
from a most common word to an apocalyptic title. ‘To this no 
theory of denial has been able to give a satisfactory answer. 
To be sure, a point of contact for the transition is usually 
found in this, that Jesus on certain occasions is supposed to 
have used the Aramaic term in the ordinary sense of “man,” 
either speaking in general or speaking of Himself. Or, He 
may have given to it the peculiar idiomatic turn, which made 
it mean “I,” a sort of more or less current substitution of the 
third person for the first. When subsequently the Greek 
translators had to render this, they failed to understand the 
strange way of speaking, and, especially where Jesus had re- 
ferred by means of it to Himself, fancied to find in it a mys- 
terious title, whence also they rendered it most literally, retain- 
ing the two articles, by 0 vidg tod adySpdmov. And it is 
claimed, that in a number of Gospel passages, which now 
have the title, the original appellative use, as meant by Jesus, 
still clearly shines through, because it is the only meaning in 
accord with the context. Into these passages we shall look 
presently. Here the question must be asked why, if “bar-nasa”’ 
was such a common word, and therefore hardly limited to the 
naming of Jesus in the Aramaic Gospel, it should have been 
properly understood and translated in all other cases, and only 
in the case of Jesus through a misapprehension yielded this 
strange designation “the Son of Man,” which no one em- 
ploys but He Himself. If Jesus actually made it a form of 
self-designation, it is not difficult to account for this phe- 
nomenon. But why should translators, familiar with the - 
idiom, have created a distinction between passage and passage, 
unless the Messianic import of the phrase were previously 
known to them? And, if it was previously known, how did it 
arise before entering into the Gospel-tradition? A Greek- 
Christian apocalyptic usage, prevailing in certain circles, can 
easily be postulated, but thereby is neither proven nor ex- 
plained. Still further, if translators knew to make a distinc- 
tion between the common and highly specialized meaning of a 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 49 


word, why should the handling of such a distinction be a prior 
denied to Jesus? 

But what about the passages, now Messianic, but believed to 
have referred in the mouth of Jesus to man as such. ‘These 
Dassaves are Mk. II, ro \(Matt..IX):6; Lk, Vpi24);) Mk]; 
Boe Wiatwus te Las V1.5)? Matty VIII 207 (eks EXy 58)); 
Matt. XII, 32 (Lk. XII, 10). In regard to the last of these 
four the possibility can be reckoned with that Jesus may 
have spoken of man generically, and that through misunder- 
standing in the process of version into the Greek the title 
“Son-of-Man”’ slipped in. A distinction is drawn in this pas- 
sage between speaking a word against the “son of man” and 
speaking a word against the Holy Spirit. The former may re- 
ceive forgiveness, the latter not. Now in the casting out of 
the demon, with reference to which this was said, Jesus had 
emphatically maintained that He worked through the Holy 
Spirit. He and the Holy Spirit were identified in the transac- 
tion. If over against this combination, Jesus-Holy Spirit, the 
son of man is placed, as one against whom words spoken are 
pardonable, then it seems plain that this son of man can not 
be again Jesus. To avoid this conclusion certain refinements 
of distinction between Jesus in some other capacity and as 
“Son-of-Man” have been introduced, but these are too unnatu- 
ral to commend themselves. As soon as for “Son-of-Man” 
the simple “man” is substituted, everything becomes perfectly 
clear. Speaking a word against a man may receive pardon, 
but speaking against the Holy Spirit, and against the One 
working through the Holy Spirit (for these two are insep- 
arable), will not receive pardon, neither in this world, nor in 
the world to come. The same reasoning may be applied to 
Lk. XII, 10, although the saying here appears detached from 
the situation in Matthew. From Mk. III, 28, the other parallel 
passage, the title ‘““Son-of-Man” is absent, and this might tend 
to confirm the correctness of the above exegesis. Perhaps 
_ also some weight is lent it by the occurrence in the same state- 


8E.¢., Dalman’s suggestion that “Son-of-Man” might here designate the 
Messiah in his humiliation, a word spoken against whom might be forgivable, 
in distinction from a word spoken against the glorious Messiah. Cp. 
Schweitzer, p. 282. 


50 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


ment of Jesus, immediately before, both in Mark and in Mat- 
thew, of the phrase “sons of men” relating, of course, to man 
generically. 

The other passages appealed to give no real support to the 
theory under review. In Mk. II, 10 (Matt. IX, 6; Lk. V, 24) 
the “‘Son-of-Man”’ is affirmed by Jesus to have authority to 
forgive sins. ‘The reasons adduced for understanding this of 
man as such are two. ‘The first is found in the question of 
the Scribes, “Why does this man (in Luke, “who is this that,” 
etc.) thus speak? . . . Who can forgive sins, but One, even 
God?” The second reason is found in the words of vs. 8: 
“But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glori- 
fied God, which had given such power unto men.” ‘These rea- 
sons can avail little in the face of the indisputable fact that, 
according to the common Christian and Jewish faith, the for- 
giveness of sin was an exclusively divine prerogative. How 
can we impute to Jesus the monstrous idea that every man has 
the authority to forgive sin? A modern Jesus, assimilating 
man to God without principial difference, might perhaps have 
thought so, but scarcely the historical Jesus. If He actually 
proceeded to forgive sin on the basis of “the rights of men,” 
then all we can say is that the Scribes were right in their in- 
sinuation, and Jesus wrong in his irreligious usurpation. 
Surely, what our Lord laid claim to can not have been this, 
but only that “the Son-of-Man” had this right. Even the 
Scribes did not mean to dispute the Messianic prerogative in 
the abstract, when exercised on the basis of the close associa- 
tion of the Messiah with God. What they protested against 
was that one, who as a mere man laid claim to Messiahship, 
should exercise this right, and moreover that, even allowing 
his title to Messiahship, He should presume to exercise it in 
the preliminary stage of his office, while as yet on earth. In 
his heavenly, exalted state, of which the “Son-of-Man’’-title 
strongly reminded, in his advent as the Judge, they would have 
conceded that the Messiah was empowered to forgive sin, but 
not in any previous state. Hence Jesus does not clothe his 
answer in the general form, that the “Son-of-Man”’ has author- 
ity to forgive sin, but gives it the very pointed form that the 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 51 


“Son-of-Man” has authority on earth to do so. And that such 
authority belongs to Him on earth He proves by the perform- 
ance of the miracle. The reasoning from his mere manhood 
would logically have implied that man as such had likewise 
the power to work miracles. The impossibility of his having 
meant this reduces the whole argument ad absurdum. Instead 
of the facile identification between “man” and “son of man” 
in this context, there is rather a pointed antithesis between 
“this man’ of vs. 7 and “the Son-of-Man” in vs. 10. The 
remark of Matthew, in vs. 8: “But when the multitudes saw 
it, they were afraid, and glorified God, which had given such 
power unto men,” was certainly not meant to affirm that every 
single man as man henceforth had authority to forgive sin or 
to work a miracle. “Exousia,” “authority,” is in its very con- 
ception a delegated thing which only the one, not the many, 
possesses. Hence the multitude say that it has been given. 
It has been committed to Jesus. This word, therefore, can not 
be made to prove that in the original understanding of the 
story the generic meaning of men as such was attached to the 
Aramaic term in the mouth of Jesus. As the Evangelist reads 
the mind of the multitude, they glorified God, because He had 
honored mankind through delegating the authority to forgive 
sin and to work a miracle to one of them. Upon the technical 
meaning of the phrase “Son-of-Man”’ they scarcely reflected. 
This much, however, they inferred from Jesus’ utterance that 
a man possessed such authority. As to the deeper meaning of 
the equivocal phrase in Jesus’ mouth this disproves nothing. 
Matthew, or whoever else appended the remark, cannot have 
found any conflict between Jesus and the multitude; otherwise 
he would have conformed the one statement to the other. 
Finally, the words “they were afraid” badly fit into the state 
of mind the new interpretation would ascribe to the multitude. 
The feeling of awe corresponded to the unique demonstration 
of the supernatural they had just witnessed in Jesus, whilst 
the glorifying arose from the reflection that this had been 
mediated through a man. 

Mk. II, 10, 27 (Matt. XII, 8; Lk. VI, 5) is much of the 
same order, When Jesus infers from the Sabbath’s having 


52 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


been made for man, that “the Son-of-Man”’ is lord of the Sab- 
bath, the term, we are told, must have the same sense in the 
conclusion which it has in the premise; otherwise the argument 
would lack all cogency. It is true that there must be a logical 
connection between the two. It is not necessary, however, to 
find this in the equation of man and Son-of-Man. The argu- 
ment is just as conclusive when ‘“‘Son-of-Man” is understood 
of the Messiah. This Messianic name suggested to Jesus, as 
we shall see afterwards, that all things affecting the interests 
of man lay particularly within his jurisdiction. Inasmuch as 
the Sabbath partook of this character in a high degree (“‘made 
for man’), He had the right of regulating its observance. 
The instances quoted by Jesus in justification of the conduct of 
the disciples are not instances of mere men as such, but of such 
as occupied a relatively high place in the service of God. 
David, Abiathar and the priests had the superceremonial free- 
dom exercised by them because of what they were and of the 
circumstances specified, but not as men in general. The gen- 
eral law underlying Jesus’ reasoning seems to be that in the 
service of the theocracy the lower must give way to the higher, 
the provision for the special servants of God and the perform- 
ance of their function to the ordinary routine of religious duty, 
the ceremonial to the ethical. But the decision about such things 
is not left to the free choice of men; the “Son-of-Man” is 
sovereign over it. That this is the correct interpretation fol- 
lows further from the phrase “even (or “‘also’’) of the Sab- 
bath” in both Mark and Matthew (not in Luke). “Even” 
suggests that, besides many things of relatively lesser impor- 
tance to which the authority of the ‘“Son-of-Man” extends, 
it covers also such an important matter as the Sabbath. This 
way of speaking is scarcely in keeping with the relegation 
of the Sabbath to the sphere of adiaphora, as to which every 
man can follow his own preference. The Sabbath stands high 
in the scale of religious sanctities. And in general also it is 
difficult to believe that the historical Jesus should have so far 
emancipated Himself from this most venerable institution of 
Old Testament religion as the modern exegesis implies. 
Finally the statement of vs. 6 in Matthew, in which Jesus de- 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 53 


clares Himself greater than the temple, proves that He lays 
claim to authority, not as a mere man, but in some official role. 

Remains only the saying, Matt. VIII, 20 (Lk. IX, 58). As 
this saying stands, an answer to the scribe (Lk. “man’’), who 
expressed willingness to follow Jesus, it must, of course, relate 
the phrase “Son-of-Man’” to Jesus, for Jesus wishes to test 
the resoluteness of the man by a vivid description of what 
happens to Himself and to his followers. To paraphrase, ‘“an- 
imals have shelter, but man has none,” would, besides being 
inexact, introduce a touch of sentimentality into the statement 
elsewhere foreign to Jesus. To avoid making it a Messianic 
self-confession, recourse might be had, perhaps, to the peculiar 
idiom, well-attested, it seems, in Aramaic dialect, which puts 
“a man” or “the man” for the personal pronoun I. Still this 
would not much relieve the difficulty. Either Jesus meant “the 
son of man” on this view with no appreciable difference from 
“I,” in which case the motive for the circumlocution is ob- 
scure, and the manner of speaking unnatural. Or, there lies 
back of this “I’’ a strong hyper-contrast going beyond the 
simple contrast between the animals and man. ‘The paraphrase 
would in that case run, “the animals have shelter, but I, who 
stand so high in the scale of manhood, I have not even where 
to lay my head.” ‘This is possible, but it would reveal a con- 
sciousness of importance hardly interpretable in any other terms 
than Messiahship. It would eliminate the formal title from 
the passage, but by no means prove that the Greek rendering 
contains a mistaken substitution of Messiahship for mere 
manhood. ‘The sole mistake would lie in this, that the trans- 
lator had changed the implicit Messianic self-consciousness con- 
tained in such an “I” into the explicit Messianic self-designa- 
tion “the Son-of-Man.” The contrast between animals and 
“Son-of-Man” receives far fuller justice by abandoning the 
whole attempt of reading “man” into the passage. The natural 
meaning lies after all on the surface: “animals have shelter, I, 
though (and perhaps because) I am the Messianic Son-of-Man, 
have not where to lay my head.” ‘The circumstance that Jesus 
speaks of “the Son-of-Man” in the third person, has, of course, 
no significance for determining the meaning of the term. ‘The 


54 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


same peculiar way of speaking occurs in undoubtedly Messianic 
passages, as we shall have occasion to observe later on.” 


® The discussion about the vernacular of Jesus’ speech has a long history, 
which was at various points influenced by theological prejudice. An il- 
luminating survey may be found in Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical 
Jesus, pp. 270-285. In the Seventeenth Century the Jesuit Inchofer argued 
that Jesus must have spoken Latin on the ground of that being the language 
of heaven, which assumption in turn was, no doubt, based on the rank of 
Latin as the official language of the Roman Church. On the other side the 
learned philologist, Vossius, led by a more substantial theological motive, 
maintained that Jesus spoke in Greek, since otherwise the authority of his 
utterances resting on inspiration would be rendered subject to doubt through 
the process of translation. The main étappes in the later discussion have 
been as follows: a first attempt at retranslating the Gospel-sayings into the 
original tongue was made by Bolten, Der Bericht des Matthaeus von Jesu 
dem Messias, 1792; emphasis on the possible familiarity of Jesus with Greek 
as well understood, at least in Galilee, determined both the Rationalist Paulus 
and the Catholic Hug to cast their vote in favor of this language; in the 
Nineteenth Century, Aramaic, long mistakenly called “Chaldee,” became the 
subject of careful philological investigation in result of which two gram- 
mars appeared, that of Kautzsch, 1884, and that of Dalman, 1894, the former 
dealing with Biblical Aramaic in general, the latter with the Jewish Pales- 
tinian Aramaic. Arnold Meyer in his Jesu Muttersprache, 1896, called at- 
tention to the sporadic remnants of Aramaic speech appearing untranslated 
in the Greek Gospels, such as “Abba,” and the cry on the cross, Mk., XV, 
34, the latter a case in which our Lord set aside a Hebrew original for the 
to Him apparently more familiar Aramaic rendering. Next the distinction 
was raised between a Galilean and a Judean Aramaic dialect. The Judean 
dialect was laid at the basis of the more systematic attempts, now setting 
in, to retranslate the sayings into Aramaic. Meanwhile the discussion had 
concentrated on the Son-of-Man problem through the epoch-making work 
of Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, ein Beitrag sur neutestamentlichen 
Theologie, 1896. Lietzmann’s startling conclusion was, that, inasmuch as 
the title did not, and could not, have existed in Aramaic, the phrase in 
question meaning simply ‘‘man,” Jesus could not have made use of it as 
a title; if it did occur in his speech, it was in no other than that general 
sense. Then taking the matter up again in 1808 Lietzmann further worked 
out his view by assuming that early Christian Theology had, through a mis- 
understanding of the generic term Son of Man, too literally translated into 
6 vide Tov avdporov created a new Messianic title. Contemporaneously 
with this Dalman. published his valuable work, Die Worte Jesu, a com- 
prehensive review of the most prominent concepts entering into the teach- 
ing of Jesus and the Gospels; the investigation aiming at determining 
the meaning of these concepts through comparison with the vocabulary and 
terminology of the post-canonical Jewish writings. His conclusion was that, 
since in the Jewish-Palestinian dialect “bar-enash” was not current, Jesus 
could seize upon it as a significant, unusual term by which to designate Him- 
self as the Messiah, though after a veiled fashion. Then Baldensperger in 
Die neuesten Forschungen iiber den Menschensohn, Theol. Rundschau, 1900, 
brought the matter, as to its theological implications, to a focus by observ- 
ing that the question ultimately at stake in this long-drawn-out linguistic 
combat was nothing less than the question, whether Jesus was (more ac- 
curate would have been, “meant to be”) the Messiah or not, and that Dal- 
man by his proof of the linguistic possibility had saved the Messiahship of 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 55 


Jesus (quoted by Schweitzer, p. 278). But Baldensperger’s assumption, that 
the question had now once for all been definitely settled, proved prema- 
ture. Subsequently still there appeared Fiebig’s Der Menschensohn, 1901, 
which in minuteness of detail investigation goes even beyond Dalman, and 
only partially agrees with him. Cp. further the note of Burkitt in 
Schweitzer, p. 279, and the painstaking discussion by N. Schmidt in his 
learned article, Son of Man, Enc. Bibl. 


Cuapter IIT 


THE DENIAL OF THE MESSIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS 
(Continued)* 


WE now come to the charge that the Messianic concept has 
undergone in the Gospels such a radical transformation as is 
inconceivable on the basis of historical happening, but must be 
the result of subsequent dogmatizing interpretation of the 
things that actually did happen. As intimated above, the al- 
leged transformation relates to two points, the break of Jesus 
with Israel, and the association of the Messiahship with suf- 
fering and the cross instead of with power and victory. 

In regard to the former of these two points the arguing of 
the deniers is as follows: Jesus could not, if having the Mes- 
sianic consciousness, have broken with his people. What hap- 
pened in reality was this: the break with the people appeared 
to his mind as a break between a prophet or teacher and those 
to whom He addressed Himself in that capacity. The disci- 
ples after his death came to regard Him as the Messiah. They 
had to adjust the two inherently incompatible things, Messiah- 
ship and estrangement of the people, and, in order to do this 
at least mechanically, they originated the paradoxical concep- 
tion of a Messiah without a people. The most obvious answer 
to this whole line of reasoning is that it must have been in- 
finitely more difficult for the disciples to conceive the idea of 
Jesus’ Messiahship, with the accomplished fact of his break 
with the nation before them, than it could have been for Jesus 
to entertain this idea, and maintain it, while as yet the break 
was only a threatening possibility, to be, humanly speaking, 
decided in the future. Looking at it from a purely psychologi- 
cal point of view, where would one seek the profound origi- 

1Cp. Schlatter, Der Zweifel an der Messianitit Jesu, to which treatise 


the writer is indebted for many particulars as well as for the general 
structure of the following argument. 
56 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 57 


nality required by the joining together of these two ideas into 
a paradox? Would it not more likely exist in the mind of 
the Master than in the minds of the disciples? In a case like 
this paradox might be almost considered a proof of authen- 
ticity rather than a symptom of spuriousness. Had Jesus 
never revealed Himself to the disciples as the Messiah before 
his death, then it would be hard to understand how they could 
ever have risen to the conviction of his Messiahship after 
that discouraging event. To say that their belief in the resur- 
rection helped them over the difficulty only apparently solves 
the problem. For belief in the resurrection also, as a mere 
belief, psychologically conditioned, could not have sprung up 
in them or gained any strength of conviction had they not 
been previously given to understand that He was the Messiah. 
If they had been told this, and had learned to believe it before, 
then it becomes perhaps conceivable that they might have 
weathered the tempest of his death, and proved equal to the 
heroism of faith in the resurrection. But to start with the 
other theory, that during Jesus’ entire earthly life and in all his 
associations with his followers, the Messianic idea had been 
foreign to both his and their minds, must involve in inex- 
plicable mystery the sudden genesis of both convictions, that 
He was the Messiah and that He had risen from the dead. 

The same reasoning may mutatis mutandis be followed with 
regard to the alleged impossibility of Jesus having joined in 
his mind the Messianic consciousness and the idea of the cross. 
This also is no more, nay, less, understandable from the stand- 
point of the disciples after the cross had been raised than when 
as yet it only cast its shadow before. The cross as such, dis- 
sociated from all previous germs of Messianic suggestion, 
must have been destructive in the mind of Jesus of every 
optimistic outlook, and fatal in the minds of the disciples to 
all Messianic belief. But, if Jesus had once envisaged and 
accepted the paradox, then after the event the idea of the Mes- 
siahship with which the cross had been paradoxically joined 
together could possibly survive. 

Thus far we have proceeded on the supposition that both 
ideas, that of a break with Israel and that of the cross, were 


58 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


actually blind facts, joinable to the consciousness of Messiah- 
ship perhaps by the irrational process of positing a paradox. 
But the question must be put whether the features commented 
upon were actually so unassimilable to the Messiahship as they 
are made out to be. To give an intelligent answer to this we 
must first of all make clear to ourselves from what point of 
view Jesus regarded his Messiahship. The modern reconstruc- 
tion of his figure and mind has made it difficult to ascribe any 
other principle to Him in any course of action than that of the 
most one-sided humanitarianism, excluding all but the most 
superficial and indirect concern for the interests of God. This, 
it can not be too often repeated, was not the state of mind of 
the Jesus appearing in the Gospels. The dominating charac- 
teristic of Jesus’ conception of Messiahship consists in its being 
absolutely God-centered. The office exists primarily for the 
sake of God. It is commonly admitted by those who believe 
in the Messianic consciousness as the center of his religion that 
He made the idea far more profoundly spiritual and ethical 
than it had ever been before. But this is only the smaller and 
more obvious half of the truth. The other half, possessing a 
far deeper source and a far wider reach, consisted in its God- 
centered character. He felt that as the Messiah He had come 
to give God what was God’s, and that in the discharge of all 
the functions pertaining to the Messianic program this was 
so much the chief interest at stake as to render compliance 
with any peripheral feature, or even the apparent frustration 
of any secondary end, relatively unimportant, provided only 
the one great purpose of glorifying God might find fulfilment. 
There is, st licet magna componere parvis, something truly 
Isaianic in this religious poise of mind. As a matter of fact 
Jesus found Himself at this point in sharp antithesis to the 
Judaistic Messianic concept, which had increasingly been tend- 
ing towards a man-centered form of hedonism. Not God but 
Israel was in it the chief figure of the world to come, and the 
Messiah appeared as the agent who would raise Israel to this 
greatness. Jesus resolutely turned his back upon this irreligious 
perversion of the idea, and set his face towards the fulfilment 
of that God-centered form of it, which He recognized as already 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 59 


outlined in the Isaianic Servant of Jehovah. If once allow- 
ance be made for the supremacy of this thought in his mind, 
the question, whether He could have contemplated a Messiah- 
ship without the allegiance of Israel, or a Messiahship organ- 
ized around the cross, assumes a different complexion. Jesus’ 
conflict with Israel was the direct result of this, that in the name 
and for the sake of God He proceeded to charge the people 
with sin, declaring them unfit for entrance upon the eschatologi- 
cal inheritance, and summoning them to repentance. There- 
fore, so far from being something that clashed with the Mes- 
siahship, the ensuing break must have appeared to Him the in- 
evitable result of the consistent carrying through of his Mes- 
siahship under the given circumstances. To dare to be a 
Messiah rejected of the people meant for Him nothing else but 
to give God what was God’s in the Messiahship. To be sure, 
if the isolation into which the Messianic service of God brought 
Him had meant absolute isolation, then it would have involved 
a mockery of the very idea of Messiahship. A Messiah with- 
out an eschatological people of God 1s inconceivable. But Jesus 
never regarded his isolation as either complete or final. The 
truth is that to Him the entire relation, hitherto supposed to 
exist between the Messiah and the people, had been reversed. 
The principle was to be no longer that he who belongs to Israel 
will participate in the fruits of the Messiahship; henceforth 
he who participates in the Messiah will thereby be assured of 
his appurtenance to the new Israel. Not Israel joins itself to 
the Christ ; the Christ creates his Israel.? We can clearly trace 
this trend of thought in Jesus’ mind. In the parable of the 
wicked husbandmen He describes the ultimate rupture between 
Himself as the last and supreme ambassador of God and the na- 
tion. He is irrevocably rejected. But, instead of frustrating 
his mission, this has the very opposite effect of making Him the 
nucleus of a new congregation: ‘““The stone which the builders 
rejected the same is made the head of the corner.’’ We see, 
therefore, that the thought of dispensing with Israel was due, 
not to any toning down of the Messianic idea, not to any depo- 


2On this point particularly Schlatter’s well-put argument, as above 
summed up, should be read in the original. 


60 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


tentiation which would have voided it of its true content, but 
precisely to raising it to the highest and most God-centered 
plane of development of which it was capable. Here again 
Isa. VI, 11 and VIII, 16-18 may be compared to advantage 
with Mk. IV, 11, 12; Matt. XIII, 13-15. And what applies 
to the break between Jesus and Israel applies part passu to the 
acceptance by the Messiah of the cross. In this also the 
incompatibility exists only from an outside point of view. ‘To 
Him the suffering Servant of Jehovah was a Messianic figure ; 
consequently the ideas of Messiahship and suffering were ca- 
pable of joint-existence in his mind. Nor was the association 
a purely external one, barely tolerable, because obedience to the 
divine word or will required it. Everything goes to show that 
Jesus discerned in it a positive purpose, and intelligently incor- 
porated this in the great service of God the Messiah is called 
upon to render. To accept the cross meant for Him minding 
the things of God, according to Mk. VIII, 33; Matt. XVI, 23. 
So long as regard was had to what man would get out of the 
Messiahship, the cross could not but appear preposterous. But 
Jesus sought the cross from the love of God. In dying, as in 
all else He did, He hallowed God’s name. Not in the frame 
of mind of a martyr, but in the plerophory of his Messianic 
purpose did He set his face towards Jerusalem there to make 
his decease. His death is that act whereby the promise of the 
great eschatological cleansing of sin will go into fulfilment, and 
a new holy Israel be made ready for God. So that again the 
conclusion of the matter is: because Jesus had made his Mes- 
siahship absolutely God-centered, and, as a part of it, subordi- 
nated his cross to the interests of God, therefore not only could 
these two go together, but the former postulated the latter. 

As a last instance against the historicity of the Messianic con- 
sciousness we must examine the alleged incongruity between 
it and the ethical idealism of Jesus. Here also a conflict un- 
doubtedly exists, but it is not a disagreement between two por- 
traits of Jesus, found side by side in the Gospels. This Jesus, 
who is too high-minded or too idealistic to have anything in 
common with the Messianic hope, has no place in the Gospels, 
but is entirely a product of the “liberal theology.” From the 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 61 


outset his figure has to such an extent been made to serve a 
partisan purpose in the propaganda and defense of “‘liberal’’ 
ideas that its devotees became in the end unable to see in this 
Jesus anything else but the reflex of their own cherished 
opinions. Schweitzer well observes that, like a Nemesis, this 
inability has pursued their method of studying the life of Jesus. 
They became more and more obsessed with the belief that they 
had a mission to perform in bringing their construction into ex- 
clusive acceptance. In reality they were engaged in a desperate 
struggle to reconcile the “modern” religious spirit with the 
spirit of Jesus in the Gospels. This gigantic self-delusion is 
now in process of being exposed through the work of the 
hyper-eschatologists, who, may their vogue be long or brief, 
have at least rendered the cause this eminent service of show- 
ing up the one-sidedness and perverseness of the ideas in 
vogue before them. 

It has not yet been sufficiently recognized that there is no 
ethical teaching of Jesus in the Gospels which does not derive 
its specific character from the consciousness of his Messiah- 
ship. Of course, general moral maxims occur, such as might 
have been enunciated at any time and under any circumstances, 
and are in so far independent of the historical situation. But 
these do not constitute the specific strand in Jesus’ ethical teach- 
ing; they are not the things that render it new and unique. 
Some enlightened Jew of that period might and may have 
enunciated them before Him. But, if we take Jesus’ ethical 
teaching as a specific phenomenon in the history of ethics, then 
it immediately springs into view that its differentiating charac- 
ter lies in its Messianic complexion. His contemporaries felt 
this better than the modernizers of his figure seem to do, for 
they recognized that his teaching was in authority unlike that 
of the Scribes. Nor did this relate merely to the difference 
between the Rabbinical appeal to tradition and the authorita- 
tiveness of the prophetic mode of speech in Jesus. The 
“exousia” of Jesus far transcended the self-assurance where- 
with the greatest prophet might have claimed the identification 
of his message with the very word of God. Jesus speaks not 
only as authoritative, but as sovereign in the sphere of truth. 


62 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


One feels his authority in the world of ideas rests on his sov- 
ereignty in the realm of realities, to which the ideas belong. 
He did not primarily come to propound a new system of ethics 
as a thinker, but to summon into being a new kingdom of 
moral realities. He stands and speaks out of the midst of a 
great redemptive movement in which He is Himself the cen- 
tral and controlling factor. In this profound sense the Mes- 
sianic idea underlies all the high idealism of his ethics, and 
alone renders it historically intelligible. Not the holding aloft 
of a high standard in the abstract, not the preaching that 
men should be sons of God, and perfect as the Father in 
heaven, and lovers of their neighbors, but the silent, majestic 
assumption that all this has now become possible, and is now 
to be called into being in a great epochal revelation, this is 
the element in the Gospels that can not be duplicated else- 
where. It is in evidence in the Sermon on the Mount, and that 
not only at the close, where Jesus represents Himself as in the 
day of judgment deciding the destiny of men on the basis of 
their ethical relation to Himself, but equally much at the be- 
ginning, where He links to the fundamental ethical and re- 
ligious requirements the absolute eschatological promises : theirs 
is the kingdom of heaven; they shall see God; they shall be 
satisfied with righteousness. Viewed in this light, the beati- 
tudes are just as profoundly Messianic as the parable of the 
wise and the foolish builders. We simply have no groups of 
moral teaching, from which the Messianic spirit, thus con- 
ceived, is absent. Nor is there any tradition-material in which 
Jesus appears preoccupied with his own ethical condition, as 
could not have failed to happen had his consciousness pos- 
sessed no higher content than that of being the ethico-religious 
ideal. , 

But, whilst this pervasiveness of the Messianic spirit in all 
the ethical teaching is an indubitable fact, it nowhere bears fea- 
tures that could even remotely endanger the most ideal standard 
of conduct. To be sure, if upholding of the principle of 
justice and retributive punishment, if moral indignation against 
sin and sinners be at the start ruled out as unworthy of the 
highest ethical attainment, then there is no need of further 


DENIAL OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS 63 


discussion. These are the very features that in the view of or- 
dinary Christians enhance Jesus’ moral greatness. But where, 
apart from this, can a saying be pointed out, against which on 
commonly accepted grounds the ethical instinct would pro- 
test? Looked at closely, the charge of un-ethicalness resolves 
itself into a refusal to concede Jesus more than a place of 
primus inter pares in the ethical realm. Why else should 
there be such shrinking from a saying like Matt. XI, 27? 
There is certainly nothing unduly self-assertive in its tone and 
temper. Nor can fault be found on that score with the majestic 
invitation following it: “Hither to me all,’’ which is only put- 
ting into practice the sublime self-consciousness voiced in the 
preceding prayer. For in this very invitation the words occur, 
“T am meek and lowly in heart.’’ And the title “Son-of-Man,” 
around which so many transcendental associations gather, Jesus 
uses in the third person, as though hesitating to put a simple 
“T” behind the high predicates joined to it. Those who thus 
one-sidedly stress the fineness of the fibre in Jesus’ ethical na- 
ture are not seldom the very ones who protest against the 
doctrine of his sinlessness. In reality they are on the way 
towards constructing another, differently complexioned, dogma 
of his faultlessness in the more limited sphere of humanitarian 
equalisation of all men. Such a dogma is apt to turn into its 
opposite. It may easily lead to discovering in Him an indiffer- 
ence to sin in others, or even to a sense of the relativity of his 
own perfection. 

The feature of “self-importance,’’ on account of which the 
Messianic character and consciousness prove objectionable to 
modern sentiment, is not the only one in the Gospel-delineation 
of Jesus that has been made subject to criticism on ethical 
grounds and regarded of dubious authenticity. The same has 
happened to the strain of other-worldliness in the self-disclos- 
ure and teaching of our Lord. This is a strain for which many 
pious in all ages have loved Him, but at which modern Chris- 
tianity in some of its phases has begun to shy, and which, in 
the drift of that modern sentiment, criticism has attempted to 
cut out of the genuine tradition, especially through the rejec- 
tion of the great eschatological discourse at the close of the 


b] 


64 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Gospels. The hyper-eschatologists perhaps have sinned in 
overmuch stressing this strain, and thus by a sort of scientific 
reaction given new life to the opposite one-sidedness. It must 
also be admitted that not a few morbid movements in the sub- 
sequent life of the Church have drawn nourishment from it. 
But all this can not alter the fact of its being there. And we 
dare not neglect or ignore it, simply on the ground that to our 
circumscribed vision the temporal significance of Christianity, 
in its immediate application to the present life, appears so 
urgent. Let us beware of incurring the charge of making 
Jesus to fit the times, instead of fitting the times to his teaching. 
There are still other times than ours for the instruction and 
inspiration and encouragement of which his figure must remain 
intact. The thing to do is neither to reject such a trait on 
critical grounds, nor to leave it in obscurity for pragmatic rea- 
sons. Let us endeavor to understand how this ingredient in 
Jesus’ ethics was deeply rooted in his God-centered frame 
of mind. Our Lord was interested in these things, because 
from the highest religious viewpoint the coming world, the 
state of eternity, meant for Him the only possible religious 
consummation. His other-worldliness was a God-centered 
other-worldliness. The wings on which it soared were of the 
finest and purest and most unselfish spirituality. Once this is 
remembered, the question, whether intense eschatological in- 
terest and due regard for the duties of the present hour can 
go together, has in principle received its answer. The two 
things were combinable in Jesus’ mind, because both alike 
drew their life-sap from his absolute absorption in the love of 
God. ‘The cosmical movements of the great eschatological 
drama and the little private experiences and concerns of the 
individual soul, the prayer in the closet, the alms in secret, met 
together in this that they both subserved the glory of God. 
Thus every possibility of his sacrificing the one to the other 
was in principle precluded. If that be defective, “monastic” 
ethics from the modern point of view, we can only rejoin that 
to us the substitute offered seems denatured ethics. To our 
taste the old wine is better. 


CuapTer IV 
THE AGNOSTIC POSITION: WREDE 


Tiavinc considered the outright denial of the Messianic con- 
sciousness, we must in the next place examine the agnostic 
position in regard to the same subject. This differs from the 
preceding position in that it does not trust itself to put in the 
place of the Messianic Jesus another Jesus with un-Mes- 
sianic aims and ideals, but stops short at the negative conclu- 
sion that the portrait drawn in the Gospels is historically im- 
possible, and yet bulking so large as to shut off from our view 
even the slightest glimpse of the real Jesus who must once have 
stood behind it. This view is associated with the name of 
Wrede, who gave it expression in his work The Messianic 
Secret. Wrede’s book is not directly concerned with the prob- 
lem of Messianism in the life of Jesus, but offers itself as a con- 
tribution to the criticism of Mark. Its main purport is to de- 
stroy the naive confidence of modern Gospel-criticism in the su- 
periority of Mark above Matthew and Luke as a recorder of the 
actual life of Jesus. Naturally, however, the test to which the 
commonly accepted superiority of Mark is put is taken from his 
attitude towards the Messiahship. The Messianic idea is sup- 
posed to have been the propelling power in the development 
Mark is understood to describe. Thus the superiority of Mark 
as a recorder of the life of Jesus and his credibility as a witness 
to the development of the Messianic consciousness go into the 
crucible together. Under the hands of Wrede they both come 
out damaged beyond repair. And what discredits Mark a 
fortiori discredits Matthew and Luke, who in the point of 
Messianism followed his cue. The end of the investigation is 
absolute scepticism with reference to the entire compass of 
the Gospel tradition. 


Let us first briefly note what Wrede has to say about the 
65 


66 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Messianic phenomena, and in the second place consider the 
theory (for in spite of agnosticism there is a theory) which 
he offers in explanation of the phenomena. 

As to the former the gist of the matter is this, that the whole 
representation concerning the Messianic character of Jesus 
is found to be self-contradictory, confused and unintelligible. 
Jesus, Wrede says, performs in public the most stupendous 
miracles, and yet He forbids the people to tell of these and 
make Him known. The demons, who recognize Him, are 
charged to keep silent about their discovery. Even the disciples, 
to whom Jesus reveals his Messiahship, are forbidden to di- 
vulge it. Besides this, it remains a secret to them in still an- 
other way. We are told by the Evangelist that they absolutely 
failed to apprehend what Jesus disclosed to them on the subject. 
Peter confesses the Messiahship at Czsarea Philippi, and this 
is hailed by Jesus as a remarkable confession, and yet on a pre- 
vious occasion we find the disciples already recognizing Him in 
a Messianic capacity. All these phenomena Wrede subsumes 
under the title of ‘the Messianic Secret.” He draws from them 
a twofold conclusion. On the one hand they show that the 
Gospel according to Mark does not deserve the nimbus of 
credibility and lucidity with which the liberal critics have 
crowned it. Tested in regard to this one central problem, it 
turns out to be just as confused and confusing on the question 
of the Messiahship as the other two Synoptics. There is no 
more trace of historical verisimilitude or rational development 
in Mark than in Matthew or Luke. Wrede further lays down 
the principle that the secrecy-phenomena noted are so remark- 
ably alike and have such a uniform bearing that there must 
be a common explanation for them all. And the explanation 
must have something to do with the history of the Messianic 
idea in the early Church. 

What then is Wrede’s explanation of this secrecy-complex ? 
It may be briefly stated as follows: the oldest view in the primi- 
tive Church was that Jesus had not been the Messiah, nor 
acted as such during his earthly life, but had been made the 
Messiah through the resurrection. This oldest view is still 
recognizable in passages like Acts II, 36 and Rom. I, 4. Soon, 


THE AGNOSTIC POSITION 67 


however, it began to be felt that, if Jesus during his earthly 
life was destined to become the Messiah, then some evidence of 
his high vocation and of his extraordinary equipment must have 
been already visible during the days of his flesh. And out of 
this feeling there gradually developed the rival opinion which 
put the Messiahship before the resurrection, carrying it back 
bodily with all its prerogatives and functions into the earthly 
life. Two views thus came to stand side by side, one of a 
Messiahship beginning with and one with a Messiahship ante- 
dating the resurrection. The writer of the Second Gospel felt 
the force of the motivation underlying each of these two views. 
He was not willing to give up the belief that Jesus had worked 
as the Messiah from the beginning, and yet he was not pre- 
pared either to obliterate entirely the remembrance of the fact 
that first after the resurrection the Messianic dignity had been 
ascribed to Him. He accordingly hit upon a compromise 
scheme, which, after a fashion, was to do justice to both rep- 
resentations. This compromise was effected by the theory that 
previous to the resurrection there had been indeed a Messiah- 
ship, but only a secret Messiahship, and that this had been suc- 
ceeded by the revealed Messiahship from the resurrection on- 
wards. Jesus had been the Messiah from the outset, but only 
the secret Messiah. In other words He had been during his 
life on earth the Messiah and yet not been the Messiah. The 
idea of secrecy enabled the Evangelist to take back with the 
one hand what he had given with the other. All the phe- 
nomena commented upon were introduced to lend a certain 
semblance of reality to this in itself impossible notion, that the 
Messianic character had lived a sort of hidden preéxistence. 
The whole construction is, of course, according to Wrede, 
purely dogmatic and utterly unhistorical, a mere tour de force. 
And, since it can be shown that it has pervasively affected the 
portrayal of Jesus’ life, this portrayal becomes by it thoroughly 
discredited. Mark’s is indeed the oldest Gospel, but it al- 
ready gives a totally unhistorical representation. The varnish 
which it lays on so overspreads the whole canvas that it is im- 
possible to see through it and reach the historical Jesus. 

It is undoubtedly true that these phenomena of secrecy to 


68 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


which Wrede calls attention are an outstanding feature of the 
Gospel narrative, and require some explanation. ‘The question 
is whether Wrede’s explanation is according to the facts and 
historically satisfactory. It is very captivating in that it re- 
duces all the phenomena to a single cause, and thus attempts 
to solve the whole problem at one stroke. But in the field of 
historical investigation the maxim, simplex sigillum veri does 
not always hold true. Of course, if the phenomena of secrecy 
were certainly due to some literary or dogmatic motive, then 
the demand for uniformity of explanation could hardly be re- 
fused. On the contrary, if they should be phenomena of actual, 
historical life, then there would be nothing improbable in the 
supposition that not one cause but a number of causes of vary- 
ing nature had produced them. Actual life is not rigid and 
simple, but plastic and complex. Nature has a way of bringing 
the uniform out of the multiform, no less than accomplishing 
the reverse. Wrede’s contention, therefore, that no other than 
a uniform explanation deserves to be considered, can not a 
priort be granted. It prejudges the question at issue, whether 
we are dealing with a literary, dogmatic construction, or with 
a piece of living history. The claim that the phenomena of 
secrecy can not be uniformly explained on the basis of actual 
occurrence may, we think, be granted. But this is by no means 
equivalent to granting that they can not be explained on the 
basis of actuality at all, once the insistence upon uniformity of 
explanation is waived. The sole question is, whether dis- 
counting uniformity, drawing upon all the factors entering into 
the situation, we can give a reasonable account of the way in 
which secrecy played a role in Jesus’ earthly life. The thing to 
be remembered above all else is that, according to all the Gos- 
pels, Synoptics no less than John, Mark no less than Matthew 
and Luke, Jesus was a supernatural Person. On that view it 
was inevitable that an atmosphere of mystery should envelop 
Him. It would be unnatural to expect that the career of such 
a Person should smoothly and transparently unfold itself, that 
there should be no riddles, no problems, no apparent contradic- 
tions. And a certain amount of secrecy might also be ex- 
pected. The privacy of the supernatural, its tendency to with- 


THE AGNOSTIC POSITION 69 


draw from the glare of public exposure, will have to be taken 
into account. And this claims recognition altogether irre- 
spective of the question whether we deal here with fact or 
legend. From a purely literary point of view, is it not likely 
that Mark, writing the life of such a Person, should have 
taken pains to introduce somewhat of the chiaroscuro in which 
the supernatural is wont to veil itself? In this sense the Mes- 
sianic secrecy was discovered and depicted by Rembrandt long 
before Wrede. 

In descending to particulars it is not difficult to see how a 
variety of factors might come into play to produce the result 
observed. Take the case of the recognition of Jesus by the 
demons. Wrede has acutely observed that the element of se- 
crecy enters here in two ways. In the first place the circum- 
stance that the demons first, and they alone for some time, dis- 
cover Jesus’ supernatural and Messianic character implies that 
this character is a secret. They can discover it, because they 
are themselves supernatural beings, who instinctively discern 
what is hidden from the gaze of ordinary men. And in the 
second place, the element of secrecy enters through the injunc- 
tion of Jesus that the demons shall not make known what they 
have discovered. If now we ask what there is in all this, taken 
by itself, to make us think of dogmatic construction, the answer 
is not obvious. Why should not the demons, assuming that 
there are such beings, have made the discovery in question? 
And, supposing they had made it, why should not our Lord 
have enjoined them from divulging such knowledge? It is 
natural enough to assume that Jesus did not want to conduct 
his ministry from the outset on the basis of a publicly pro- 
fessed Messiahship. Not only would He have opened the door 
‘to error by permitting this; in all probability it would have 
brought his career to a premature close through inviting the 
intervention of the Roman authorities. Besides, the demons 
were not the proper agents to publish abroad the fact of his 
Messiahship. How little a rigid, preconceived scheme is to be 
applied to cases of this kind may be seen from Mk. I, 25. 
Here Jesus’ rebuke to the demon, “Hold thy peace and come 
out of him,” seems to have no further purpose than to sup- 


70 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


press the unseemly noise made by the evil spirit. Discounting 
this, there are only two cases where a prohibition laid upon 
the demon to make Jesus known is recorded, Mk. I, 34; II], 12. 
Over against these stand two other instances, where Mark re- 
lates with some detail the casting out of a demon, and yet fails 
to put on record an injunction of silence, V, 7; IX, 20. Nay, 
in the case of the Gerasene demoniac, V, 19, the man is ex- 
pressly charged by Jesus to go to his friends and tell them 
the great things the Lord has done for him. All this certainly 
does not look as though Mark had slavishly followed any 
dogmatic scheme, for in that case he would have handled all 
encounters of Jesus with demons in strict conformity to it, 
adding the stereotyped prohibition everywhere. Similar stric- 
tures on Wrede’s reasoning may be made where the miracles 
of healing come under consideration. There is this difference 
between them and the demoniac cases that in the latter a rec- 
ognition of the Messiahship preceded so as to place the se- 
crecy from the beginning in a Messianic light, whereas the 
healing miracles and the secrecy practised in regard to these 
did not necessarily have such a strict reference to the Messiah- 
ship. Here the possibility of a concurrence of various motives 
offers itself. A too large concourse of people desiring to be 
healed might easily have interfered with the orderly progress 
of Jesus’ ministry. After the healing of the leper, and the 
enjoinder of silence upon him, which he did not obey, we read 
that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was with- 
out in desert places, Mk. I, 45. Of another motive we learn 
in Matt. XII, 16 ff.: “Many followed him, and he healed 
them all, and charged them that they should not make him 
known, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through 
Isaiah, the prophet, saying: Behold my Servant, whom I have 
chosen, my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased . . . he 
shall not strive nor cry aloud, neither shall one hear his voice 
in the streets.”’ Jesus, in accord with this prophetic utterance, 
desired to perform his miracles in as unostentatious a manner 
as possible. This sprang not merely from the ethical princi- 
ple of humility, but equally much from the soteric purpose 
of bringing them into harmony with the law of humiliation 


THE AGNOSTIC POSITION vis 


imposed upon his earthly life. He acted on the basis that no 
glory should accrue to Himself from his works. In such cases 
it was not the intention of Jesus to keep his Messiahship as 
such secret, but to keep the inherent glory of the Messiahship 
veiled, so far as possible. At the same time He could not help 
doing these miracles, for they formed an essential part of his 
task in connection with the preaching of the Kingdom. If 
there exists a contradiction here, it is one inherent in the nature 
and conditions of our Lord’s office. The retirement appro- 
priate to the state of humiliation and the publicity inseparable 
from certain aspects of the Messianic task came into conflict. 
Jesus’ compassionate desire to heal and his desire to keep Him- 
self in the background collided. He wanted to remain in hid- 
ing and could not be hid. It is impossible for us to determine 
in detail how Jesus in the various emerging situations solved 
this problem, nor why He took measures in some cases to do 
so and not in others. Some miracles were performed in pub- 
lic; sometimes there were mass-healings. In such cases every 
enjoinder of secrecy would have been useless, Mk. I, 32; VI, 
56. At another time the healing was private, VII, 26, and 
here an enjoinder of secrecy was appropriate, though not al- 
ways effective, VII, 36, 37. In still other cases the enjoinder 
was unnecessary, VII, 29. A downright absurdity, such as 
might render the account suspected, would occur only if mir- 
acles performed in full publicity had the injunction of secrecy 
joined to them. But such cases are not recorded. Had the 
writer been guided by the fixed idea that with the Messianic 
miracles must go the Messianic secrecy, he would not have 
failed here either to introduce the idea uniformly and con- 
sistently. As it is, there are not a few instances in Mark 
where Jesus heals and puts no restriction of Bt?) upon 
the recipients of his cures. 

No more weight can be attached to the construction put by 
Wrede upon the Gospel treatment of the parabolic teaching, 
and of the hardening effect ascribed to it, Mk. IV, 10-12. 
Mark represents Jesus as speaking in parables, not, at least not 
exclusively, to make the truth vivid, but in order to veil it, 
lest the people should understand: “Unto them that are with- 


72 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


out all things are done in parables, that seeing they may see, 
and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not under- 
stand, lest haply they should turn again, and it should be for- 
given them.” This, therefore, we are told, is only another 
form of the principle of secrecy on which Mark makes Jesus 
act, and the secrecy refers here as elsewhere to the Messiahship, 
for that, according to Wrede, is meant by “the mystery of the 
kingdom of God,” given to the disciples, but not given to those 
without, vs. II. 

In answer to this it should suffice to say that, while Wrede’s 
observation deserves attention, he seems to have sought the 
solution of the problem in too specific a quarter. It does not 
here belong specifically to the Messiahship, but to that strain of 
apocalyptic eschatology that is cognate to predestinarianism. 
This may be an unpleasant subject to speak about, and to many 
it would seem safer to devolve the whole burden upon the 
shoulders of Paul. But Paul at this point evidently had his 
predecessor in Jesus, or, if putting it the other way be deemed 
more correct, both Jesus and Paul obeyed the inner law of the 
nature of eschatology, the enunciation of which in Paul’s case 
was made more sharp by reason of the accentuated exclusion of 
Israel from the Messianic kingdom. For, that there was to be 
a division in the last times, was a belief of long and accred- 
ited standing. True, there were moral factors involved in this, 
but an exercise of the divine sovereignty also enters, and it is 
not necessary to go to the Fourth Gospel to find even in the 
words of Jesus the expression of this mysterious principle. 

Apart from this predestination aspect of the secrecy, there is 
perhaps another reason discoverable for its appearance in the 
parabolic teaching. The “mystery” of the Kingdom, besides 
its application to the veiled presentation of the truth, may have 
had reference to the nature of the Kingdom, no less than to the » 
form of its announcement. The mystery (or “mysteries” Mat- 
thew and Luke) may have lain in the latent, spiritual character 
of the preliminary stage of the Kingdom to which some of the 
parables pointedly refer. For throughout the secrecy is repre- 
sented as Kingdom-secrecy. And yet Wrede is not altogether 
wrong in bringing it to bear upon the Messiahship, In the 


THE AGNOSTIC POSITION 73 


understanding of the Evangelists the two movements, that of 
the Kingdom-idea and that of the Messianic-idea, run closely 
parallel. As the Kingdom passes first through a hidden, in- 
visible, secret stage, so the Messiah first exists in a hidden, in- 
visible, secret form. And as the Kingdom is to come at some 
future time in the outward manifestation of visible glory, so 
the Messiah will have his day, when He will be manifested 
openly to the world. But this parallelism goes to show that 
the one may be just as historical as the other. Historical rea- 
-sons, which will fully account for the facts, are no more lack- 
ing for the veiling of the Messiahship than they are for the 
veiling of the Kingdom. There is no ground, then, to assume 
on the score of the parabolic teaching that Mark and the 
others are here plying some cunningly devised theory in which 
the secret Messiahship was to be equal to the non-existent 
Messiahship. What can be explained from the actualities of 
life needs no artificial accounting for from problematic con- 
jectures. In our opinion it is extremely questionable whether 
the simple mind of Mark could have been so expert in the 
weaving of highly complex trains of thought as was the subtle 
“boring” intellect of Wrede, who was easily the most brilliant 
of his school of critics. The scheme seems very captivating, 
when looked at through the lenses of the Twentieth Century. 
Transported back into the period of the Gospel-formation, it 
looks strangely out of place. Wrede has ingeniously dealt with 
the material, but not sufficiently projected himself into the mind 
of the alleged framer of the scheme, which, after all, would 
have been the first duty of the historian. 

In conclusion it should be remembered that the secretive use 
made of the parabolic teaching is strictly confined to this one 
situation in the Gospel history. Neither Mark nor the other 
Synoptics teach that Jesus habitually employed his parables for 
such a purpose. This does not favor the view that the whole 
representation is due to a dogmatizing fiction. For, if the 
Evangelist had had such an idea in mind, he would probably 
have applied it to the whole range of the parabolic teaching, 
all the more so since the idea of the Messianic secret is sup- 
posed to have pervaded his writing from beginning to end. 


.Y 


74 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


The secretive use of the parables is within the Gospels a local 
phenomenon, not a constant phenomenon. ‘The question de- 
mands an answer: Why did the writer introduce the idea here 
and only here? To this question Wrede gives no answer. 
Whether the situation be historic or not, it is a real situation 
within the book. Either in the actual development of Jesus’ 
ministry, or in Mark’s conception of the course of events, 
there must have been a sufficient cause for making it occur 
precisely where it does. 

In still a different form the Messianic secrecy is believed to 
appear in the manner of reception of Jesus’ disclosure of his 
Messiahship on the part of the disciples. Here, it will be per- 
ceived, the secrecy lies no longer in the attitude of Jesus but 
in the failing response of his followers. It is a secrecy pro- 
duced by utter lack of apprehension. The thing had come to 
light, but in the befoggedness of those who had received the 
revelation it remained a secret no less than before. ‘The non- 
understanding is only another device for keeping the atmos- 
phere of secrecy around it till the end. Although Jesus dis- 
tinguishes the disciples from the multitude, and reveals to 
them what He hides from the others, nevertheless the whole 
thing remains a riddle to them. We read once and again that 
they do not apprehend, do not understand it, although hav- 
ing been told in the plainest, most explicit terms. Therefore 
Wrede again concludes that the situation is unreal in the ex- 
treme. This whole alleged self-revelation of Jesus is but a 
- fiction of the Evangelist. In the unfolding of the actual drama 
it remains inoperative, produces no effect; it makes no his- 
tory, and consequently must be itself unhistorical. And this 
lasts until the resurrection. Not until then is the veil taken off 
the minds of the disciples, not until then do they understand. 
This latter representation is but an indirect way of saying 
that the Messiahship did not become a reality until after the 
resurrection. Wrede applies this train of reasoning first to 
the prophecies of Jesus concerning his passion and death, but 
then extends it to the other self-disclosures also. He does not 
even exempt from it the episode of Czesarea-Philippi, where 
Jesus causes Peter to confess the Messiahship, and which used 


THE AGNOSTIC POSITION 75 


to be considered by critics of all types the best authenticated 
item in Gospel-history. He suggests that the point of the nar- 
rative in Mark is even here, that Peter’s mind remained im- 
pervious to the great truth. 

Although there is considerable exaggeration in Wrede’s re- 
hearsal of these facts, it must be acknowledged that the re- 
markable lack of apprehension ascribed to the disciples is not 
easy to understand. The question is, whether it can be made 
to any extent psychologically intelligible, or whether nothing 
remains but to call it an unreal and impossible play of pup- 
pets. It can be shown, we think, that the psychosis involved 
is not so unexplainable as might seem on the surface. Ac- 
cording to the Gospels the disclosures related to something 
more particular than the Messiahship in the abstract. Back 
of the latter lay, and through it was borne in upon the disciples, 
the sonship of Jesus, his whole supernatural character, what. 
we call his Deity. If it had been mere Messiahship, the 
disciples might perhaps not have been so bewildered. To this 
must be added the previous noncommittal attitude, whereby, 
though by no means repudiating the claim, Jesus did not self- 
assertively insist upon it either. ‘This also would be apt to 
create an element of perplexity. Still further, where the lack 
of apprehension appears most acute, where it is affirmed with 
reference to an outright declaration of Jesus, the lack of un- 
derstanding relates to one particular feature of the Messiah- 
ship, viz., to the Messianic suffering and death and the resur- 
rection to follow, Mk. IX, 10, 32. We should not lump all the 
statements together on account of a certain formal similarity. 
They are not all alike in character. To say that the disciples 
did not understand the announcement of the death or the resur- 
rection is something far different from saying that they failed 
to apprehend the Messiahship. In the case of Jesus’ death 
the apprehension was made all the more difficult because no 
rationale of the fact had been offered at the beginning. It 
was first submitted as a blind fact. We do not mean to offer 
these considerations as an exhaustive and fully satisfactory 
solution of the problem involved. All we want to suggest is, 
that the matter is perhaps not so hopelessly incredible and phan- 


76 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


tastic as we are asked to believe. It should not be denied that 
there is still an unexplainable residuum. We shall be best 
made to feel this by observing the form in which Luke in one 
passage presents the matter: “Let these words,” says Jesus, 
“sink into your ears, for the Son-of-Man shall be delivered up 
into the hands of men.”” And the Evangelist adds: “They un- 
derstood not the saying, and it was concealed from them, that 
they should not perceive it, and they were afraid to ask him 
about the saying,” IX, 44, 45. It seems to be intimated here, 
that there was a positive divine purpose in keeping the disciples 
from apprehending the words of Jesus: it was concealed from 
them, that they should not perceive it. But why? So far as 
we know no satisfactory explanation of this statement has ever 
been given. Plummer in his commentary remarks on the pas- 
sage: ‘They were not allowed to understand the saying then 
in order that they might remember it afterwards, and see that 
Jesus had met his sufferings with full knowledge and free 
will.’ * But why their not understanding it and their remem- 
bering it afterwards should have shown this to them more 
clearly than if they had understood the saying from the be- 
ginning, is hard to see. But even if there were nothing but 
unexplained mystery here, we should still have to maintain 
that Wrede’s hypothesis does not solve the riddle. In three 
respects it fails to meet the test. Jn the first place, the scheme 
attributed to Mark is not consistently carried through. The 
disclosure of the Messiahship to the disciples does not always 
remain unapprehended. By Peter at Czsarea-Philippi the Mes- 
siahship is confessed. Wrede, to be sure, is of the opinion 
that Mark, unlike Matthew, does not want the confession to 
be understood as an epoch-making or commendable act. He 
thinks Mark simply introduces the case as one more instance 
of Messianic recognition followed by prohibition. The stress 
lies, he thinks, on Jesus’ charge that they should tell no man 
of Him, vs. 30. But this is not in harmony with the fact that, 
according to Mark no less than according to Matthew and 
Luke, Jesus solicits the confession from Peter. The confes- 
sion in so far does not appear as a mere peg to hang the 


1 Plummer, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, in loco. 


THE AGNOSTIC POSITION V7 


prohibition on, but possesses for the Evangelist a positive and 
independent significance. The avowal of Messiahship comes 
here in the form of confession, and this proves that in this 
case at least Mark ascribes a true, if not a full, apprehen- 
sion of the fact to Peter. The same must be affirmed with 
reference to the instance of James and John asking of Jesus 
that He place them on his right hand and on his left in his 
glory. Even in regard to the suffering and death Mark does 
not mean to deny all understanding to the disciples. Peter 
at Czesarea-Philippi knew perfectly well what Jesus meant, for 
he took Jesus apart and rebuked Him. Rebuke would have 
been out of place if it had been a question of unintelligible- 
ness pure and simple. Jesus treats the incident after a far 
more serious fashion: Peter’s rebuke of Jesus involved a temp- 
tation. Satan had his hand in it. Peter had disapproved of 
the program of suffering and death announced by Jesus. 
There is, then, here apprehension of the fact, without appre- 
hension, to be sure, of the purpose. But the purpose was pre- 
cisely that which Jesus had not as yet explained. Perhaps a 
realization of the impending, inavertible tragedy is also im- 
plied in Mk, X, 32: “They were on the way going up to Jeru- 
salem, and Jesus was going before them, and they were amazed, 
and they that followed were afraid.” Here the writer’s mean- 
ing seems to be that the disciples were amazed and afraid at 
Jesus’ resoluteness in going up to Jerusalem. Wrede would 
have us believe that this being amazed is but a species of being 
bewildered, of wondering, of not understanding what Jesus 
was doing, so that after all the case would fall under the rubric 
of non-apprehension. But the “being afraid’ can not be ex- 
plained on that ground, and there is no objective reason for 
lifting it out of the text, as Wrede feels constrained to do. 
In the second place, if all this lack of understanding is only 
Mark’s way of expressing the thought that until the resurrec- 
tion there was no knowledge of the Messiahship, why does not 
the Evangelist give effect to this thought through making Jesus 
after the resurrection lay aside all the secrecy in such a way as 
to compel the disciples to understand and believe? If the se- 
crecy meant that the Messiahship was unreal, then the reality 


18 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


of the Messianic conviction from a certain point onward ought 
to have been expressed by the removal of the secret. Mark 
does not say that Jesus did this. It is a mere surmise that in 
the original conclusion of the Gospel, believed to have been lost, 
something to that effect was found. Lk. XXIV, 16 proves that 
the later Evangelist at least extends the not understanding into 
the post-resurrection period. In the third place, finally, we 
must ask how such a trait of the repeated failure of Apostles 
and disciples to comprehend the plainest statements of the 
Lord, and that on such a fundamental part of the faith, could 
ever have been subsequently invented, and, if invented, tolerated 
as a fictitious contrivance in the service of a dogmatic theory. 
The early Church held the original followers of Jesus, espe- 
cially the Apostles, in too high honor to produce such a train 
of thought of its own accord, or to countenance it, when pro- 
duced. There seems to be no other way of accounting for this 
than to assume that it embodies so firm and persistent a tradi- 
tion that the early Church could not evade it through elimi- 
nating it from the record. 


CHAPTER V 
THE THEORY OF PROSPECTIVE MESSIAHSHIP 


HAVING now discussed the absolute denial of the Messianic 
consciousness and the agnostic position in regard to its his- 
toricity, we must next consider a third view in which affirma- 
tion and denial are combined. This compromise between ap- 
parent irreconcilables is effected through qualifying the idea of 
Messiahship in such a sense that what is conceded to Jesus is 
no more than the prospect of inheriting at some future point 
the office and the function. Jesus did not lay claim to the 
Messiahship as a present dignity, and did not act out of the 
consciousness of any of the prerogatives pertaining to it while 
He was on earth. He looked upon Himself as the One des- 
tined to become the Messiah, but not yet inducted into the of- 
fice. And so the early disciples looked upon it when declaring 
afterwards that He had been made Messiah through the resur- 
rection, Acts II, 36. It will be perceived that on this view 
the Messianic idea can retain its prominent place in the con- 
sciousness of Jesus. His mind was full of the thought; it 
determined his outlook, colored his self-estimate, and to some 
extent shaped his procedure. In making full allowance for 
this, the theory escapes some of the difficulties that beset every 
un-Messianic explanation of the life of Jesus. It need not 
resort to the extreme critical operations which the wholesale 
purging of the record of all Messianic material requires. At 
the same time it seems to offer a plausible explanation for the 
reserved, non-committal attitude of Jesus towards the Messi- 
anic question during the earlier part of his ministry. He was 
indeed the Messiah by appointment, but none the less lacked 
the warrant for proceeding to act as the Messiah de facto. The 
secret Messiahship of Wrede would thus appear to be at bot- 
tom nothing else but the prospective, unrealized Messiahship, 
which, for the very reason of its purely provisional, appointive 

79 


80 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


character, would carry with it a certain atmosphere of secrecy 
and mystery. 

It is not difficult to guess where the advocates of this view 
are likely to be found. It is in the camp of the thorough- 
going eschatologists. Those who believe that Jesus staked his 
whole life upon the future, and attached no value to the pres- 
ent, naturally extend this point of view likewise to the Messiah- 
ship. Not the present interimistic transitory state, already la- 
boring to bring forth the end, can lay claim to possessing the 
great transcendent things, least of all the Messiahship. The 
apocalypse of the age to come coincides with the apocalypse 
of the Messiah. The bearings of this view can be best ap- 
preciated by holding it in close connection with the idea of 
the Kingdom attributed to Jesus by the same class of writers. 
We are accustomed to finding in Jesus’ teaching the idea of a 
present spiritual Kingdom, realized in the invisible internal 
sphere through his ministry on earth. We assume that He re- 
garded the Kingdom as in principle already there, although the 
eschatological consummation was still prospective. But the 
ultra-eschatologists have changed all that. They insist upon 
it that to Jesus the Kingdom was in no sense a present, but 
exclusively a future, thing, that He did in no wise look for- 
ward to its coming as a gradual process, but wholly as a 
catastrophic cosmical event, that He did not think of bringing 
about or expediting its arrival by any spiritual efforts of man, 
Himself included, but left all to the supernatural interposition 
of God, and that consequently He regarded his own ministry 
as purely preparatory, intended to make ready the people for 
its coming, a second and heightened form of the ministry of 
John the Baptist. Now it is precisely after this fashion that 
Jesus is believed to have placed his Messiahship in the future. 
The Kingdom and the Messiahship go together. And this 
works both ways. One standing outside the Kingdom and 
merely preparing the way for its reception can not be the ar- 
rived Messiah, whatever He may be destined to become after- 
wards. And on the other hand, one actually engaged in setting 
up the Kingdom of God as a present reality can be noth- 
ing short of the Messiah. The identical consequences that fol- 


PROSPECTIVE MESSIAHSHIP 81 


low from the relegation of the Kingdom to the future must 
follow from the relegation of the Messiahship to the future. 
It is agreed on all hands that Jesus made the Kingdom of 
God and the Messiahship the great pivotal things of his world- 
view. If all the spiritual activity in which He engaged, all 
cultivation of righteousness, all enjoyment of religious sonship 
were purely preparatory to the Kingdom and the Messiahship, 
mere means to an end, then they become excluded from the 
inner essence of these two, and in so far the Kingdom and 
the Messiahship appear deéthicized, despiritualized, deidealized. 
Jesus is made an eschatological enthusiast for the sake of 
eschatology, pure and simple. Ethics and religion have been 
shifted from the center to the periphery of his consciousness. 
On the other hand if Jesus’ Kingdom-idea and Messianic-idea 
were in a real sense religiously oriented, if in both He sought 
the supremacy and glory of God, then it will follow that He 
can not have failed to find in the spiritual values of his activ- 
ity, by which the divine glory and supremacy were established 
in the spiritual sphere, something of the real beginning 
of the Kingdom of God and of his own central position in it. 
The present and the future, being thus made jointly subservient 
to the God-centered movement of things, must have appeared 
to Him in that case as integral and mutually integrating stages 
in the coming of the Kingdom of God and in the fulfilment of 
his own Messianic destiny. 

This parallelism between the ideas of the Kingdom and the 
Messiahship will be useful to us in determining the element of 
truth there is to be found in this theory of prospective Messiah- 
ship. In the same sense and for the same reason as Jesus re- 
garded the Kingdom as lying partially as yet in the sphere of 
futurity He could likewise so regard certain aspects of his 
Messianic activity. The solution of the two parallel prob- 
lems is not to be sought through projecting the entire realisa- 
tion of the idea into the future, but through recognizing a 
cleavage within each of the two ideas, assigning part of the 
fulfilment of each to the present and part to the future. The 
Kingdom was and was not yet; even so the Messiah was and 
was not yet. As the future coming of the Kingdom, so fre- 


82 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


quently affirmed, was not meant to deny the very real existence 
of a present phase of the same, so neither did the prospective 
contemplation of the Messiahship exclude every present mode 
of realisation in its case. There was a point of view from 
which Jesus could regard his Messiahship as a future thing. 
According to the prevailing Old Testament representation the 
reign of the Messiah will be a reign of glory. Especially in 
Daniel VII, whence the title “Son-of-Man” is derived, this 
feature is made prominent. The Old Testament takes the 
Messiahship as an eschatological unit and overleaps, as a 
tule, the preliminary relative states so familiar to us. Ac- 
cordingly Jesus, approaching the idea from the Old Testa- 
ment point of view, could let his eye rest on the glorious 
consummate state, and after the ancient fashion call this the 
Messiahship, nay, could speak of its future arrival as the com- 
ing, the appearing, of the Messiah. Nor was this a matter of 
mere formal adherence to a traditional way of speaking. We 
must take into account here what might be called the “abso- 
lutism’” of our Lord’s way of thinking. He grasped things, 
not in their relative, but in their absolute, ideal aspect. From 
the great realities handled in his teaching the thought of con- 
summation was to Him inseparable. The Kingdom of God, in 
order to be truly the Kingdom of God, is the perfect King- 
dom of God, in which the divine will shall be done on earth, 
after no less absolute a fashion than it is done in heaven, and 
only at this acme of its realisation does it fully deserve the 
name of God’s Kingdom. In the same way the Christ of God, 
in order to be truly his Christ, must be the consummated Christ, 
on whom all the Messianic authority and power and glory shall 
have fully descended, and only at this summit of his career 
does He fully deserve the name of Messiah. In fact this ab- 
solutism is characteristic of the eschatological frame of mind 
in general. In turn its occurrence in our Lord is one of the 
indications of his fundamentally eschatological outlook. Traces 
of its influence upon his way of speaking are found in connec- 
tion with the Messiahship no less than in connection with the 
Kingdom. He sometimes refers to the eschatological crisis as 
“the coming of the Kingdom of God,” just as if no kingdom 


PROSPECTIVE MESSIAHSHIP 83 


worthy of the name had previously existed: “For I say unto 
you I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingdom 
of God shall come,” Lk. XXII, 16, 18. Notice, He does not 
say, “until the Kingdom shall be perfected,’ nor “until the 
eschatological form of the kingdom shall come,” but simply 
“yntil the Kingdom shall come.” In precisely the same way 
Jesus refers to his Messianic appearance as a future thing. 
He speaks of his “parousia,” his “advent.’”? We put into such 
statements, if not explicitly at least by implication, the idea 
of a “coming again’ on the basis of the familiar distinction 
between a “first” and a “second” advent. While not meaning 
to deny that this distinction has a real basis in the teaching of 
Jesus, the thing to note here is the use of the word “parousia,” 
which means “coming,” not “coming again.’”’ We miss the 
fine point of such sayings in failing to observe that to Jesus 
the parousia was the coming of the Messiah, because then 
first, and not before, would He appear in the adequacy of his 
Messianic character. Likewise, without the use of the tech- 
nical term “‘parousia,”’ Jesus speaks of this future manifesta- 
tion as his “coming,’”’ Mk. XIII, 26, 35, 36; XIV, 62; Matt. 
XXIV, 30, 42; XXV, 6; Lk. XII, 37-45; XXI, 27. We also 
hear of the “apocalypsis,” the “revelation” of the Son-of-Man, 
Lk. XVII, 30. Attention should further be called to the pecul- 
iar way in which Jesus speaks of “the Son-of-Man” in the 
third person. While obviously referring to Himself, He yet 
does not say “I.” Probably more than one motive induced 
the peculiar objectivity of this way of speaking. In many 
of these statements the transcendent honor and glory of 
the Messiah in his eschatological manifestation are referred 
to. It would be fully in keeping not merely with our Lord’s 
humbleness of mind but also with the proprieties of the 
state of humiliation had He shrunk from introducing into 
such connections the pronoun “I.” An interesting parallel 
may be quoted from Paul. When speaking of the won- 
drous revelation wherewith God had honored him, Paul hesi- 
tates to say: This happened to me, but says instead: “I knew 
a man in Christ caught up into paradise,’ etc. II Cor. XII, 
2-4. Conjointly with this motive of humility, and in part 


84 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


underlying it, there may perhaps be found in our Lord’s third- 
person use of the Son-of-Man title a recognition of the fact, 
that the Son-of-Man was something future, and in so far some- 
thing yet different from Himself, identical in Person, to be 
sure, but nevertheless different in equipment and mode of ap- 
pearance and activity, something that in a sense was yet strange 
and mysterious to Jesus Himself, and therefore could be spoken 
of in the third person. In a couple of passages this way of 
speaking approaches a formal distinction between Jesus Him- 
self as such and as the Son-of-Man. In Mk. VIII, 38 (Lk. 
IX, 26) Jesus declares: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of 
me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of 
him also shall the son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in 
the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Similarly Lk. 
XII, 8: “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall 
the son of man also confess before the angels of God.’ ? 
Plainly, when Jesus says “I” and “me,’ He speaks as the 
humble and humiliated subject, the One whom it is easy to 
be ashamed of, whom it takes courage to confess, whereas in 
the other clause of each sentence, where He says the Son-of- 
Man, He speaks prospectively of his Person in an altogether 
different setting as the One who comes to judge, with the 
glory of his Father, and attended by the holy Angels. This 
same contrast between the Messiah who is now, and the Mes- 
siah who is to be, only with clearer avowal of personal identity, 
finds expression in Jesus’ words at his trial: “Thou hast said 
(that is to say: [am the Christ even now in my present abject 
condition) ; nevertheless I say unto you, henceforth ye shall 
see the Son-of-Man (that is to say, a wholly different form) 
sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds 
of heaven.” Such at least is the clear antithesis in Matthew, 
although it appears less pointedly in Mark and Luke.? 

There is, then, this element of truth in the affirmative aspect 
of the theory of prospective Messiahship, that Jesus could, as 
it were, objectify to Himself his future glorious state as some- 
thing with which He had not yet fully grown together or in 


1 The parallel passage in Matthew has the pronoun in both clauses. 
2 Mk. XIV, 62; Lk. XXII, 60. 


PROSPECTIVE MESSIAHSHIP 85 


experience familiarized Himself. But over against this stands 
a larger element of error in what the theory ventures to deny. 
By assuming that Jesus looked upon his activity during the 
earthly life as non-Messianic, a mere preparation for the later 
Messianic life, it comes into conflict with the plain statements 
of the Gospels. According to these there was a great deal of 
Messianic reality in the life of Jesus on earth. First of all 
there was the Messianic appointment, as the accounts of the 
baptism show. It is simply excluded that Jesus could have 
counted the appointment to the office itself as belonging to the 
futurities. The advocates of the prospective Messiahship fail 
at this point carefully to distinguish between futurity of both 
the appointment and the work, on the one hand, and futurity 
of the work alone, on the other, the appointment having been 
already received. It must have made an immense difference to 
the consciousness of Jesus whether He knew that the divine 
choice had fallen upon, the divine summons come to, Him, 
even though the active discharge of the task may still have re- 
mained outstanding, or whether the whole thing, including the 
call to the office, remained wholly in the future. The assured 
conviction of being under divine appointment and consecrated 
to the great office is the least that we can postulate for the mind 
of Jesus from the very outset. Without that the consciousness 
of unique greatness and of unique importance, so prominent 
and pervasive in his self-estimate, become inexplainable. By 
the bare prospect of a high position they can not be accounted 
for. Only the knowledge that the office had been solemnly 
placed upon Him could normally produce such an exalted 
state of mind. But, while this is the least to be insisted upon, 
it by no means exhausts the content of present possession which 
the Gospels represent Jesus as carrying within Himself. Jesus 
was conscious of standing in the midst of the actual discharge 
of Messianic functions. On the fact of his allowing Messianic 
names such as the “Son of David,” the “Holy One of God,” 
the “Son of God,” to be applied to Him, no stress need be 
laid here, for this could be set down to a proleptic use of such 
titles. According to Dalman the Rabbis do not hesitate to call 
the Messiah by his official name before his public appearance. 


86 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Even Peter might have thus confessed Him the Christ by an- 
ticipation. But there are other and unequivocal data to con- 
sider. Side by side with his future coming Jesus speaks of 
a past coming, which He couples not merely with prophetic 
work, but with specifically Messianic tasks. He came not to 
call the righteous but sinners, Mk. II, 17. The Son of Man 
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give 
his life a ransom for many, Mk. X, 45. He came not to de- 
stroy either the law or the prophets, but to fulfill, Matt. V, 17. 
He came not to send peace but a sword, Matt. X, 34. He 
came to cast fire upon the earth, Lk. XII, 49. The Son-of- 
Man came to seek and save that which was lost, Lk. XIX, Io. 
It is not maintained, of course, that the use of the verb ‘‘came” 
in such connections proves by itself that Jesus was conscious 
of having appeared as the Messiah, for a “coming”’ is predi- 
cated of Jesus and John the Baptist in the same sentence, Matt. 
XI, 19. But the argument derives its force from the fact that 
this coming is coupled with specific Messianic functions. To 
cast fire, to save, to fulfill, these acts are just as much the re- 
sult of a Messianic appearance as the stupendous eschatological 
events that will result from his future coming with the clouds 
of heaven. Although the Messianic glory outwardly may be 
absent, the internal essence of the Messiahship, consisting in 
the exercise of authority and power for establishing the King- 
dom of God around the nucleus of a new Israel is there from 
the beginning. He claims the right to forgive sin, and ex- 
pressly stipulates that this belongs to Him not merely in the 
future exercise of judgment as the heavenly Son-of-Man, but 
even now in his earthly stage of activity, Mk. II, to. He sets 
aside Old Testament institutions, cleanses the temple, appoints 
Apostles, institutes the Supper. The works of casting out 
demons and healing the sick and setting at liberty the bound 
are fully Messianic in his own estimation. In all of them a 
sovereign, regal, absolute will asserts itself. Finally the suf- 
fering and death are not simply preparatory to the future exer- 
cise of Messiahship; they are themselves Messianic acts, indeed 
constitute the very core of the task the Christ came to accom- 
plish. 


PROSPECTIVE MESSIAHSHIP 87 


It will now have become sufficiently plain that the theory of 
a purely prospective Messiahship, either so far as the appoint- 
ment plus the performance, or so far as the performance alone 
is concerned, runs contrary to the facts. Before leaving the 
subject, let us for the sake of greater clearness endeavor to 
formulate the New Testament view about our Lord’s accession 
to and entrance upon the Messiahship. There is a twofold Mes- 
sianic commission, and there is a twofold opening up of Mes- 
sianic activity corresponding to this. The first commission 
underlies the public ministry and finds formal expression in 
the voice from heaven at the baptism. It is to this first com- 
mission that Jesus refers in the great Messianic monologue of 
Matt. XI, 27: “All things were delivered to me by my 
Father.”” Under this commission all the ministry of the days 
of our Lord’s flesh must be subsumed. The second commis- 
sion, which from the standpoint of the first and its discharge 
was prospective, dates from the resurrection. It is with refer- 
ence to the latter that our Lord after the resurrection again 
declares, only now in a higher and more comprehensive sense, 
that all power is given to Him in heaven and on earth, and 
that Peter after the ascension declares that God by raising 
Him from the dead has made the crucified Jesus both Lord 
and Christ, and that Paul affirms Him who was born of the 
seed of David after the flesh to have been effectually dectared 
the Son of God in power out of a second resurrection-birth. 
Under this new and greater commission is exercised all the 
Messianic work now carried on in the state of glory, and which 
Jesus will perform at the acme of his Messianic epiphany at 
the end of the world. These two steps in his appointment and 
these two stages in his activity belong organically together. 
The second completes the first and brings it to full fruition, 
but in essential character they are both equally Messianic. It 
is not, therefore, the Messiahship as such, but only the second, 
full-grown phase of it that can have presented itself to our 
Lord’s consciousness as a future attainment. 


Cuaptrer VI 


THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF JESUS INTO 
THE MESSIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS 


Tuts theory represents another form of compromise between 
the denial and the affirmation of the presence of the Messianic 
consciousness in Jesus. Both positions are chronologically dis- 
tributed over his lite. It differs from the theory of prospective 
Messiahship in that it places a period at the beginning during 
which the idea was totally absent from Jesus’ mind, whereas 
according to the preceding view the thought was there from the 
beginning as a vision of something future. At the same time 
it admits of combination with the prospective view in this way 
that the development assumed to have taken place might have 
been a development into the prospective frame of mind at 
first. This, however, for our present purpose is negligible. 
Our enquiry is into the alleged transition from a wholly un- 
Messianic state of mind to one in which the Messianic con- 
cept played a role, no matter of mere futurity or of actuality. 
During the first, wholly un-Messianic, state Jesus considered 
Himself as no more than a prophet, a teacher, a reformer. At 
a later point the conviction arose in Him that God meant Him 
to be the Messiah. The point at which this took place is 
found by some in the episode of Czsarea Philippi, by others 
at an earlier date in the Galilean ministry.» The development 
to which the enquiry refers must be, of course, a development 
during the active ministry of Jesus. With the delicate and 
purely speculative question of the growth of the mind of the 
youthful Jesus during his private life before the baptism the 
discussion has nothing to do, except in so far as it might be 
assumed that the experience of the baptism was the climax 
and product of a mental evolution previously undergone, a 

1 As representatives of the theory of development Strauss, Renan and H. 


J. Holtzmann may be named. 
88 


THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT 89 


view which would have to remain mere unverifiable hypothesis, 
since biographical data of the pre-baptismal period are lacking. 
Putting, then, the question how during the progress of our 
Lord’s public activity the two successive states of mind through 
which He passed would have to be conceived of, a twofold 
possibility presents itself. On the one hand the original state 
of mind in which He began his labors might have been en- 
tirely void of all occupation with the Messianic question. Or, 
He might have labored under the definite conviction that He 
was not the Messiah. It may be admitted that, psychologically 
considered, the former alternative possesses a certain charm of 
naiveté, an absence of clear self-consciousness at the begin- 
ning which left room for the natural unfolding of the later 
matured conception of Himself characterizing the days of mo- 
mentous decision at the close. Unfortunately the situation in 
which Jesus’ activity opened precludes such a simple process 
of gradual, undisturbed growth. It must have been impos- 
sible for Him not to take his stand at the outset in regard to 
the bearing of the Messianic issue upon his own Person. For 
the air was surcharged with eschatological currents. John the 
Baptist had made the Messianic question one of vital actuality. 
In the face of that Jesus could not simply ignore it or brush 
it aside. He had either to deny or to affirm. If He denied, 
no subsequent passing over into a Messianic frame of mind 
was possible without recantation of this original un-Messianic 
self-estimate. Development, therefore, was inevitably beset 
with initial error and failure to interpret aright the signs of the 
times. As a matter of fact there is no break in our Lord’s 
consciousness of self, such as this self-correction would in- 
evitably have produced, observable at any point in his career. 
On the contrary all the evidence tends to show that Jesus with 
clear consciousness of what He was doing stepped into the 
only position that John’s eminence, as the greatest of those 
born of women had left open, and that was the position of 
the Messiah. If John was already the preparer, Jesus could 
not assume the role of a second preparer without upsetting the 
entire eschatological program. From John’s case we can tell 
how essentially different the state of mind of a preparer was 


90 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


from that actually present in Jesus. And an impartial examina- 
tion of the evidence proves that the beginnings of our Lord's 
ministry do not differ from its closing days so far as convic- 
tion on this point is concerned. A difference there is, but it 
is purely a difference in Messianic avowal to others, not a dif- 
ference in consciousness within Himself. Of course, that Jesus 
strongly felt Himself a prophet, and that particularly at the 
beginning, proves nothing to the contrary of a fully settled_ 
Messianic conviction. As a matter of fact this prophetic self- 
avowal is so intense and its utterance so emphatic as to allow 
of no other explanation than on the basis of a Messianically- 
rooted prophetic consciousness. It was modelled not upon the 
general Old Testament conception of a prophet, but upon that 
specific figure found of the Servant of Jehovah in the later 
prophecies of Isaiah. From the address in the synagogue at 
Nazareth this becomes clear at once, for here the possession 
of the prophetic Spirit is claimed by Jesus on the ground of 
Jehovah’s having anointed Him to be the Christ. And later, 
in the parable of the wicked husbandmen, while his mission is 
put on a line with that of the prophets, it appears none the 
less as climacteric; its prophetic aspect is absorbed by its Mes- 
sianic aspect. Hence also the effects He associates with his 
prophetic activity go far beyond what a prophet in general 
could expect to accomplish. He not merely brings good tid- 
ings to the poor, but proclaims release to the captives, and 
recovering of sight to the blind, the arrival of the great ac- 
ceptable year of Jehovah, the year of Jubilee, in which all 
things disturbed by sin and evil return to their normal and 
wholesome condition. From the first Jesus, while not speak- 
ing much about the Messiahship, acts, and obviously thinks 
and feels, as the Messiah. A very early proof of this, at 
least if any reliance may be placed on Mark’s sequence of 
events, occurs in the statement of the parable where Jesus 
compares Himself to the bridegroom, and the time of his 
presence with the disciples as the period of Messianic joy. The 
event at Cesarea Philippi is the only thing the advocates of 
the development-view are able to seize upon as marking an 
epoch in the attitude of Jesus towards the Messiahship indica- 


THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT 91 


tive of a change. An epoch undoubtedly it is, only not be- 
cause it revealed something new to Jesus concerning Himself, 
but because it settled something in the minds of the disciples. 
Jesus by his own question solicited the avowal of Peter, which 
implies that to Jesus’ mind the question, if there was any de- 
cision necessary, had been decided before this event took place. 
But even with reference to the disciples the keynote of the nar- 
rative is not that of the revelation of something new; it means 
the confession of something revealed and learned before. 
Jesus, in order to lay the proper basis for the prediction of his 
death and resurrection, wants to focus into an explicit avowal 
what the disciples had with varying degrees of lucidity and 
conviction apprehended before. ‘That the significance of the 
episode lies in the sphere of confession appears also from the 
relation in which the event stands to the building of the 
Church, for the Church is based on confession. When Jesus 
praises Peter blessed, because of what, not flesh and blood, but 
the Father in heaven has revealed to him, there is no necessity 
whatever of understanding this of instantaneous enlightenment 
at that very moment. Probably the reference is to the super- 
natural process, which had accompanied Peter’s association 
with Jesus from the beginning and made him ripe for the 
present confession. 

But the question at issue may also be tested in a different 
way. If there was a development, what, we ask, were the his- 
torical or psychological factors that furnished its motive power? 
To this question no satisfactory answer is given. P. W. 
Schmiedel and Schtirer find the starting-point of the process 
in Jesus’ recognition of the inadequacy of the law to form the 
basis of an ideal religion. But this explains nothing, unless 
there be added to it a conviction on Jesus’ part of having been 
personally called to remedy the inadequacy by substituting a 
new and higher law. As soon as this is added, however, we 
plainly have arrived at a point where the Messianic conscious- 
ness exists, and are no longer dealing with a sub-Messianic 
state of mind. Reform of the law must have appeared to the 
ordinary Jewish mind and to Jesus Himself a distinctively 
Messianic prerogative. No one could entertain the thought 


92 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


unless conscious of the authority, and to be conscious of that 
meant to be conscious of Messiahship. This applies likewise 
to the somewhat more general suggestion of Holtzmann, that 
the approach to the Messianic conviction lay for Jesus through 
the intense and vivid feeling of having something new and 
unique to offer. For those new things which our Lord felt 
competent to offer were so unique and far-reaching that to 
believe one’s self able to dispense them would differ only ver- 
bally from the belief of being the Messiah. Holtzmann more 
particularly speaks of the new and absolutely unforensic con- 
ception of God evolved by Jesus as a possible source of the 
Messianic consciousness. But certainly there is a far call from 
the feeling of having obtained a new insight into the character 
of God to the conviction of being the Messiah. Of the favorite 
hypothesis that the Messianic consciousness was a development 
of Jesus’ experience of ethico-religious sonship, we shall not 
speak now, since it will come up for discussion presently in an- 
other connection. 

The widespread belief that a development in the self-con- 
sciousness of Jesus is traceable in the Gospels, especially in 
Mark, is largely due to this, that no sufficient distinction is 
made between our Lord’s own subjective state of mind and 
the objective expression of that state to others. A develop- 
ment there surely is; only it does not lie in the mind of Jesus 
as turned inward upon itself, but in his self-communication to 
others. To be conscious of Messiahship is one thing, to give 
this consciousness the proper disclosure and effect under cer- 
tain circumstances is another thing. Not a little of the para- 
doxical character of the Gospel-representation arises from the 
seeming disproportion between these two things. The record 
joins together the strongest conceivable Messianic conscious- 
ness and the least conceivable effort for asserting and enfore- 
ing it. Our Lord throughout seems to feel that the dignity 
is his, and yet He throughout refrains from stressing it. Both 
in the beginning and at the end and in what lies between our 
Lord appears to have looked upon his Messianic honor and 
glory as something which it was not for Himself to seek and 
to disclose but for the Father to seek and bring to light. At 


THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT 93 


the baptism it is not Jesus but God who declares his divine 
sonship and his Messianic election. At Czsarea Philippi it 
is not from his own lips but from Peter’s lips that the confes- 
sion is heard. At his entrance into the holy city, while the 
whole staging of the thing implies his kingship, yet He leaves 
it to his followers and to the children to sound that praise. If 
no human mouths are found to do it, the stones will have to 
speak, for the thing must be told, only He is the last one to 
tell; Nay, still at his trial, it is not until the question is 
pointedly put up to Him, “Art thou the Christ?,” that He 
answers, “I am.’ And even here, before Pilate, according to 
all three of the Synoptics, before the Sanhedrin, according to 
Matthew and Luke, the answer assumes the form, “Thou hast 
said it,’ or “Ye say that I am,” a way of speaking which, 
. while assenting to the fact, emphasizes the circumstance that 
not He but his judges have made affirmation of the same. A 
certain passivity and reserve, therefore, continue to character- 
ize our Lord’s attitude in this matter till the very end. Never- 
theless a clearly marked difference is observable between the 
period preceding Czsarea Philippi and the days following 
after. While previously He had not hesitated to speak and 
act as Messiah, yet He had not made the Messiahship a sub- 
ject of professed instruction to the disciples. Henceforward 
this is changed. It was now possible to make the change, for 
the situation had so shaped itself that if now He spoke of 
Himself as the Christ, it had to be in words placing the es- 
sence of his Christhood in suffering and death. But not only 
had it now become possible to do so, it had likewise become 
necessary owing to the same hastening on of the crisis to the 
end. Jesus had to make plain that, not in any other capacity, 
but exclusively in that of Messiah He meant to suffer and die. 
An avowal of Messiahship was, therefore, inevitable, under 
the circumstances. In regard to the public the change came 
somewhat later, because only after a period of seclusion with 
the disciples did He again come in contact with a wider circle 
of people. In the cleansing of the temple, in the parable of the 
wicked husbandmen, in the argument about the Davidic son- 
ship of the Messiah, the altered attitude can be clearly seen. 


94 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


But there is nothing to indicate that this varying adjustment 
to the situation was in any way the result of an inward develop- 
ment. On the contrary, the firm, unhesitating, yet tactful, pro- 
gressive opening up of the subject to the others proves all the 
more convincingly that for Him Himself it was, not a matter 
of growth, but an assured conviction from the outset. 


Cuarpter VII 


THE THEORY OF PURELY FORMAL SIGNIFICANCE 
OF THE MESSIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS 


THE various unfriendly attitudes towards the Messianic 
consciousness discussed above were found to assume the form 
of historico-critical elimination of the facts. There exists, how- 
ever, still another way of neutralizing the objectionable ma- 
terial. It differs from the former theories in that it recognizes 
the reality of the Messianic idea, with self-application, in the 
life and thought of Jesus. But, since the same shrinking from 
the implications and consequences of the fact is felt, the at- 
tempt is made to reduce the significance of the fact to the 
smallest possible proportions. This is done through repre- 
senting the Messianic consciousness as a more or less acci- 
dental vehicle of self-expression through which Jesus tried to 
convey his deepest convictions concerning his Person and call- 
ing. As such it must be carefully distinguished from the in- 
ward core, not only his religiousness, but likewise from the 
real essence of his deepest, more or less unclarified, self-inter- 
pretation. These latter not only allow of other forms of ex- 
pression: they require such, if what Jesus thought of Himself 
is to be made intelligible to present-day religion. ‘To Jesus, 
to be sure, the thing was an inevitable mode of self-apprehen- 
sion, because He shared with his age the formal concepts of 
religion, At the same time He was far in advance of that age 
in his perception and experience of the ultimate realities of re- 
ligion, for conveying which to others He had to put up with 
this inadequate traditional form. And, therefore, in order to 
do Him justice, we must separate the substance from the form 
and cast it into some other modern mould. 

In many cases those who hold this view do not take the 
pains to point out in Jesus’ consciousness indications that would 


suggest any distinction between substance and form. In their 
: 95 


96 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Opinion it was not a distinction consciously drawn by Jesus 
Himself. He was naively unaware that there lodged in his 
soul, side by side, these two things, the eternal essence of his 
religious and vocational experience and the Messianic form 
in which this strove vainly to express itself. The essence to 
such an extent outdistanced the form that, had Jesus thought 
Himself through, He would have found it necessary to cast off 
the form and to substitute for it some other permanently 
valid category of self-interpretation. But He did not thus in- 
trospectively analyze his own mind and never discovered that 
its form of expression fell far short of its essence. 

In other cases, however, the unsatisfactoriness of leaving the 
matter in this shape and basing the distinction entirely on a 
judgment brought to bear upon Jesus from the outside is real- 
ized. An endeavor is made to obtain from Jesus’ own mind 
and from his actions psychological support for the view ad- 
vocated. In some way or other it is sought to introduce the 
distinction between religious substance and Messianic form 
into Jesus’ own thought as an element of self-knowledge. He 
Himself came to feel that the Messiahship did not and could 
not cover all that He meant to be and accomplish. The phe- 
nomena which are supposed to indicate such a state of mind 
are the following. 

First of all attention is called to the minor emphasis which, 
in comparison with other ideas, the Messianic thought receives 
in his teaching. Jesus, we are told, never dwells upon it as 
a matter of supreme interest as He does upon such things as 
the Kingdom, the fatherhood of God, and the ethical value 
of man. Of these He speaks much and insistently, of the Mes- 
siahship little and evasively. 

But, while this is an argument from silence or lack of em- 
phasis, others endeavor, in the second place, to prove by posi- 
tive evidence that the Messianic form of self-interpretation op- 
pressed Him with a sense of its inadequacy. He felt the Mes- 
siahship as a burden under which He labored and suffered, to 
which He never quite reconciled Himself, which never became 
to Him a source of true religious joy. 

Thirdly, however, the reason most frequently assigned for 


PURELY FORMAL SIGNIFICANCE 97 


the purely formal character of the Messianic consciousness is 
this, that it is believed to have sprung from a deeper and more 
fundamental consciousness, that of sonship. Jesus came to re- 
gard Himself the Messiah because He knew Himself the Son 
of God. It is assumed that what was primary in development 
must also have been in his estimate primary in point of impor- 
tance. If Jesus learned to believe in his Messiahship on the 
basis of his sonship only, then all that is necessary, for re- 
ligious purposes, to insist upon is the sonship; the other may be 
discarded as a mere form in which, under historical limitations, 
the sense of sonship strove to express itself. 

In dealing with this view, the two ways of applying the 
distinction made, that of bringing it to bear objectively upon 
the appraisal of Jesus’ life, and that of importing it into his 
own subjective reflection, require different treatment. So far 
as the former method is concerned, the obvious answer is that 
it does not represent Jesus’ own judgment as to what was 
essential and what formal, but the judgment of those who 
apply it. There is no guarantee whatever that our Lord, had 
He been led to discriminate between essence and form, would 
have drawn the line in this particular way, and not rather have 
placed the Messiahship within the essence. ‘The method is one 
of dogmatic appreciation, not of historical finding. It tells us 
what from a certain preconceived standpoint Jesus ought to 
have considered fundamental and what He might have treated 
as negligible, but it does not tell us what Jesus actually did as- 
sign or would have assigned to these respective categories had 
the question been put to Him. 

How utterly subjective the procedure is may be seen from 
this, that with the various writers in each case that precisely 
is declared to be the substance which constitutes the core of 
the writer’s own theological belief, and the remainder a perish- 
able form. The “liberal” theologians say the fatherhood of 
God and the brotherhood of man is the substance, the Messiah- 
ship is the form. Harnack says the substance consists in three 
things : the Kingdom of God and its coming, the fatherhood of 
God and the infinite value of the human soul, the better right- 
eousness and the commandment of love, the Messiahship is 


98 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the form. Another noted scholar, Shailer Matthews, says the 
substance lies in this: Jesus the incarnation of God, the re- 
vealer of a forgiving God, the type and teacher of the perfect 
human life, the source of supernatural life; the Messiahship 
is the form. It is perfectly clear that the liberal theologians 
define the substance as they do because they are humanitarians ; 
Harnack defines it as he does because he is a Ritschlian; Prof. 
Matthews defines it as he does because he is a Baptist liberal. 
Each of these writers is, of course, fully entitled to his own 
dogmatic estimate, but we should not be asked, on the basis of 
this, to believe that Jesus was inclined to make light of his 
Messiahship as a mere matter of form. 

The case becomes quite different when in Jesus’ own mind 
traces of a depreciating estimate of the Messiahship are sought 
and found. Here the dispute is one as to facts pure and sim- 
ple. Is it true that Jesus places less emphasis upon the Messiah- 
ship than upon other things? Is it true that He feels the Mes- 
siahship as a drawback and a burden? Is it true that his con- 
viction of being the Messiah was an outgrowth from the ethico- 
religious sense of sonship? 

As to the first point, the view under consideration does not 
sufficiently distinguish between making much of a matter and 
speaking much of the same. It 1s quite true that for a con- 
siderable period of his ministry Jesus spoke much more, and 
much more openly, of the Kingdom and of the fatherhood of 
God than of the Messiahship. But it by no means follows 
from this that his comparative silence with reference to the 
latter evinces a slight of its importance in his estimate. On 
the contrary, while preserving silence in his verbal teaching on 
the subject, we find Him at the same time acting most out- 
spokenly out of the fulness of his Messianic conviction. Had 
the silence or lack of emphasis been due to low valuation, then 
the mode of action ought to have been in accord with this. 
The relative silence in this case is no reliable gauge for the 
importance Jesus inwardly attached to the conception. 

When during the later period of his ministry Jesus breaks 
the silence and avows his Messiahship this is not done after 
any half-hearted fashion, but with the energy of an unfalter- 


PURELY FORMAL SIGNIFICANCE 99 


ing purpose. Such an attitude is hard to understand on the 
assumption of a purely formal or perfunctory acceptance of 
the idea. As Schlatter has strikingly observed, the advocates 
of such a theory too much conceive of Jesus as treating the 
Messianic idea after a purely theoretical fashion, as an element 
in a system of thought, and therefore readily persuade them- 
selves that He might have held it in all sincerity, and yet have 
attributed to it no more than a purely formal significance. But 
such a theoretical thing the Messiahship never was, nor could 
be to any one claiming it for Himself. Least of all could it 
be this for Jesus, who placed his whole life in the most absolute 
sense in the service of God, and to whom, therefore, the cate- 
gory under which He subsumed his service acquired the char- 
acter of unqualified obligatoriness, so as to exclude every 
thought of the mere formal or non-essential. To Jesus the 
Messiahship was a matter of the will, a matter of obedience 
to God, and to put into it anything less than the whole heart 
and mind and soul and strength would have been in his view 
not merely to falsify the idea but to prostitute the office. For 
this reason the assertion that Jesus felt the Messiahship as a 
burden, not as a joy, is as unlike the actual facts of the life 
of our Lord as anything could possibly be. If it were true, 
it would disclose a most serious schism within Jesus’ religious 
life. It would mean that He had had to concentrate his ener- 
gies of service upon something into which He could not carry 
the enthusiasm of his heart. But there is nothing in the Gospel- 
record to warrant such an assumption. Not only are all indi- 
cations of indifference and reluctance with regard to the Mes- 
sianic function lacking, but we find evidence for the very op- 
posite. The one outstanding occasion on which the record 
represents our Lord as rejoicing in the Spirit and pouring 
forth his soul in jubilant gratitude to God is an occasion where 
He reflects on his Messianic calling and views Himself as the 
personal center of the entire process of Messianic revelation, 
Matt. XI, 25-27; Lk. X, 21-22. Nor must we forget that 
Jesus has derived from his Messianic calling the necessity to 
suffer death. This is the crowning proof that He did not treat 
the matter as an idea that could be entertained or discarded 


100 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


as the circumstances might seem to advise. It was to Him 
something for which nothing else could be substituted, some- 
thing by which He felt absolutely bound in his conscience, 
something that He would not and could not surrender even to 
escape loss of life. The Messiahship was a vital concern 
between God and Himself: He clung to it with the utmost 
religious energy, carried it through without swerving or waver- 
ing to its bitter end. Is it seemly, we may well ask with Schlat- 
ter, is it seemly in the face of this to say that the Messiah- 
ship was a mere form which we can set aside without sub- 
tracting anything from the vital values of his life and work 
on our behalf? 

There still remains in the third place the argument that the 
Messiahship must be secondary and nonessential because de- 
veloped in our Lord’s mind out of his sense of sonship. This 
argument rests on a correct observation. Jesus Himself so 
represents it that his Messiahship is based on his sonship, The 
utterances in which this is either affirmed or implied will be 
examined at a later stage of the discussion in connection with 
the import of the name “Son of God.” Here we content our- 
selves with observing that the data there to be weighed offer 
no real support to the alleged secondariness of the Messianic 
consciousness. For, in the first place, it should be observed 
that in these utterances of our Lord the connection between 
Messiahship and sonship is a purely objective one. Jesus 
means to affirm that in the sphere of objective reality, in the 
objective order of events, the Messiahship came to Him as a 
divine appointment because He was antecedently the Son of 
God. But He does not intimate in any way that in the sub- 
jective sphere, in the unfolding of his consciousness, the one 
grew out of the other. What the statements of Jesus refer to 
is a matter-of-fact interdependence, not a psychical evolution. 
And, in the second place, the sonship Jesus puts back of his 
Messiahship is something toto genere different from that 
brought into play where the attempt to prove the Messiahship 
secondary is made. According to the theory we are dealing 
with the sonship is nothing more than ethico-religious son- 
ship differing only in degree from the filial relationship to 


PURELY FORMAL SIGNIFICANCE 101 


God that any disciple may attain in the Kingdom. It consists 
in the perfect reciprocation and enjoyment of the love of God 
on the one hand, and in the perfect accord of obedience with 
the purpose and will of God on the other hand. It is believed 
that Jesus at first lived in this ideal ethico-religious atmosphere 
wholly without Messianic thought or aspiration, and that only 
in course of time the perception dawned upon Him that, since 
He was the only one who possessed all this, and since it was 
the privilege of others to attain unto it, He must be called of 
God to mediate it to the others, which conviction of a divine 
calling to make men participate in his own religious attainment 
was equivalent to the consciousness of Messiahship. 

It does not require much historic sense to perceive that such 
a construction fails to do justice alike to Jesus’ idea of son- 
ship and to his idea of Messiahship. Both ideas move in the 
circle of this theory as pure abstractions without semblance of 
either present or future reality of concrete existence. A con- 
ception of Messiahship in which the office would be exhausted 
by the making of men perfect in a religious and moral sense 
Jesus could never have entertained for a moment as a full- 
orbed expression of what historically the Messiahship had 
come to stand for. Not, of course, as though that task had 
been excluded from the function as Jesus saw it. That is not 
the point; the question at issue is whether He could identify 
the Messiahship as such with this task, and therefore infer 
from the incumbency of that task upon Himself that He must 
be the Messiah. This cannot be too strongly denied. The in- 
ference would have been valid only if, in addition to a con- 
sciousness of perfect oneness with God, Jesus had felt pos- 
sessed of all-comprehensive supernatural knowledge and power 
such as no degree of moral or religious perfection could have 
produced in Him nor could have led Him to believe He pos- 
sessed. Jesus expected to be the heir and representative of 
God in the most comprehensive sense, to sit at God’s right 
hand, to quicken the dead, to judge the world. 

In view of all this, who does not feel that the sonship ade- 
quate to furnish the basis for such a Messiahship, either de 
facto or psychologically, must have far transcended the limits 


102 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


set for it in the theory we are considering? As a matter of 
fact the sonship to which our Lord traces back his Messianic 
commission is not something we have in common with Him, 
but something unique, reaching back into his preéxistent pre- 
mundane life. In a word it is nothing less than his Deity, or, 
strictly speaking, the relation which in his divine nature He 
sustains to the Father. Now, if the sonship of Jesus be taken 
in this solid, intra-divine sense, and not in the attenuated, mor- 
alizing sense to which it has been reduced by the “liberal” 
theology, the problem of comparative importance or secondari- 
ness of it and the Messiahship assumes quite a different com- 
plexion. ‘To be sure, it remains true as much on this as on 
the other construction that the Messiahship is in his life the 
secondary thing, not merely in the order of being, but also in the 
order of importance. When seen in the perspective sketched 
above, it will have to be classed with the things that are rela- 
tive, not with the order of absolutes. This it shares with all 
other historic things, as compared with the inner life of the 
Deity. Of the world itself in its totality, and all that is in the 
world, of man, of redemption, no such absolute value and sig- 
nificance can be affirmed, as it is the essence of religion to af- 
firm of God. All these things could not be; of God alone can 
it be said that He and the content of his life are essential in 
the absolute sense. To this inner life the sonship of our Lord 
belongs if we give it the full meaning He Himself ascribes to 
it. It is an absolute fact, as the Godhead itself is an absolute 
reality. 

On the other hand, the Messiahship is an element in the 
world-fabric. Though belonging to the highest plane in the 
world-order, yet 1t does not pass beyond, but remains included 
in it, and therefore must needs partake of the relativity be- 
longing to the world as such. It is the core and goal of the 
world-movement, and within the world-movement all things 
exist for its sake, and converge towards it. Nevertheless, hav- 
ing said this, we can not go on and say that it is essential as 
God is essential. In a very real sense, therefore, we are bound 
to admit that the Messiahship and the Messianic consciousness 
of Jesus are secondary. But saying this, we have affirmed their 
secondariness in quite a different sense from that in which the 


PURELY FORMAL SIGNIFICANCE 103 


view we are criticizing would affirm it. For, not as compared 
with the Godhead and the eternal sonship, but as an element in 
the world process, within the sphere of religion itself, within 
the very order of salvation, within the historical life of Jesus, 
we are asked to believe that the Messiahship is a mere acci- 
dental form of conception, and that the ethico-religious sense 
of sonship, an element likewise belonging to the order of his- 
tory, is the sole important essential thing. On our view of the 
matter no such conclusion can be legitimately drawn. Though 
undoubtedly the world and redemption might not have been, yet 
the world existing, and the world being subject to redemption, 
the Messiahship is a primary and essential factor. In other 
words, there are things in our relative world which are none 
the less essential to and primary within this order of creation 
and salvation, and such a thing is the Messiahship of Jesus. 
While our Lord, looking back (we speak after the manner of 
man) from the standpoint of his earthly life upon his premun- 
dane eternal abode with the Father, could regard all this tem- 
poral Messianic task and experience as a fleeting episode, yet, 
relating Himself to the plan and history of redemption, He 
could not but regard this same Messiahship a cardinal fact, 
transcending all other world-facts in its intrinsic importance. 

The gist of the matter may be briefly summed up in the 
following three propositions: (1) As compared with the divine 
eternal sonship, the Messiahship is a secondary relative thing; 
(2) As considered within the order of redemption, it is a_ 
primary essential thing; (3) As compared with Jesus’ own 
ethico-religious sonship, the Messiahship, so far from being 
inferior in importance, occupies a higher rank. Our Lord’s 
whole human nature and all that entered into it of spiritual 
experience was not a thing existing for its own sake; it ex- 
isted and operated for the sake of his Messianic calling. It 
was a means to the end of his Messiahship, not the Messiah- 
ship a mere form for its expression. ‘So long as Christians 
glory in the human nature of Jesus no less than in his Deity, 
on account of what, side by side with the Deity, the former 
means for their salvation, they will feel bound to place the 
Messiahship above the religious and moral sonship in the scale 
of values. — 


Cnaptrer VIII 
“THE CHRIST” 


Jesus calls Himself “the Christ,’ Matt. XVI, 17, 20; Mk. 
IX, 41; Lk. XXIV, 26, 46. He is so called by others in the 
Gospel story, Matt. XVI, 16; Lk. IV, 41; indeed, if any re- 
liance is to be placed on the tradition, He must have been com- 
monly so designated, Matt. XX VII, 17, 22; Lk. XXIII, 2, 35; 
not to speak now of the fact that the Evangelists freely give 
Him this title. It is not our present purpose to test the historic- 
ity of these passages from a critical point of view, but, assum- 
ing them to be authentic, to enquire what precise meaning was 
associated by Jesus Himself and the others with the name. Was 
it already at that time a purely formal and traditional designa- 
tion, practically amounting to a proper name, or did it still 
come to the minds of the users laden with its etymological sig- 
nificance? 

The Old Testament is usually believed to be full of the title 
“the Messiah.” This is a misunderstanding. The question is 
not, of course, whether what was later called ‘‘the Messiah” 
appears in the Old Testament as the figure of the great eschato- 
logical King, for that is beyond dispute. It is purely a ques- 
tion whether, or to what extent, the figure referred to bears 
this technical name. At the outset it must be granted that 
the simple brief form of the title “the Messiah’’ does not occur 
there. The word always has a qualifying genitive or suffix 
attached to it: “the Messiah of Jehovah” (“the Lord’s 
Anointed’), or “my Messiah” (“mine Anointed’). This is 
of some importance because it shows that the name had not 
yet been petrified into a conventional designation, but was a 
phrase the force of whose original conception was still being 


felt. After the Old Testament times the phrase became ab- 
104 i 


“THE CHRIST” | 105 


breviated into the simple ‘“Messiah.’’ Dalman has suggested 
that this was due to the later Jewish avoidance of the name 
of God.* Instead of saying “the Anointed of Jehovah” the 
Jews said simply “the Anointed.” This may be correct, al- 
though it should be noted that the fuller form did not entirely 
go out of use, cp. Psa. Sol. XVII, 32, “the Lord’s Christ’; 
Poni One nisiGhrists sSyriviApoc:.) Bar, XXXL sits 
LXXII, 2 “my Messiah”; En. XLVIII, 10; LII, 4 “his Mes- 
siah.” In the Gospels, with the exception of Lk. II, 26 “‘the 
Lord’s Christ,” and possibly in I, 11, if the reading Kupuos 
be changed into Kupiov, the simple “O Xpuordg occurs every- 
where. None the less it is certain that Jesus clearly re- 
flected on the idea of anointing implied in the word, and spe- 
cifically on the source of the anointing in God, for in the syna- 
gogue at Nazareth He derived his Messianic equipment from 
the anointing imparted to Him by the Spirit of Jehovah, quot- 
ing the prophecy of Isa. LXI, 1 ff. 

Back of this question of the shorter or longer form of the 
name lies the far more fundamental question as to whether 
the Old Testament passages, which use the full form, actually 
mean to designate by it the eschatalogical King, or make it a 
metaphorical description of the people of Israel. The latter 
has been of late advocated in all seriousness. The adoption of 
such a view would make the name Messiah as the name of a 
single eschatological figure disappear entirely from the Old 
Testament, although, as stated above, the figure itself would 
not on that account disappear, remaining present under other 
names. It would also follow from such an assumption that 
our Lord as well as the Apocalyptic literature before Him and 
the whole New Testament after Him are to be charged with 
a fundamental misunderstanding of the Old Testament appli- 
cation of the phrase, since they transferred it from Israel to a 
single person. As for the Old Testament, the question is 
largely a question of the exegesis of a number of Psalter-pas- 
wameesred 2 XV ITT) Sri (Tl) Samy MOTs ty ha 7; 
Pov ee LX ATV, 10; LAXXIX, 396, 52; CXXXIT 17. 
To these must be added the Psalmodic passages I Sam. II, to 


1 Die Worte Jesu, I, pp. 238, 230. 


106 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


and Hab. III, 13. Further Isa. LV, 3.* Each of these pas- 
sages ought to be considered on its own merits. In Hab. III, 
13 and Psa. XXVIII, 8, where the parallelismus membrorum 
favors it, the equation Israel = Messiah may be allowed. In 
other passages e.g., Psa. II it lacks plausibility because here it 
would involve the giving of the title “King” to the people in 
addition to that of “Messiah,” which seems unplausible. A 
sufficient basis for the self-application of the title on the part 
of Jesus would under all circumstances remain. Moreover the 
representation of Israel as Messiah and of the individual 
eschatological King are by no means mutually exclusive. The 
“anointed” King and the “anointed” people are closely related. 
The parallel case of the attribution of “‘sonship” to both sug- 
gests the possibility of a common possession by both of the 
“anointing.” Inthe New Testament the anointing is bestowed 
upon both Christ and believers. Also the case of the Messiah 
and the Messianic people jointly bearing the name “Servant 
of Jehovah” in the latter part of Isaiah furnishes a parallel.* 
A really serious objection to the theory would arise only if it 
were advocated in that extreme form in which the Messia- 
nizing of the nation is considered an intentional substitute for 
the hope of an individual Messiah. This would amount to an 
anti-Messianizing polemic. Usually Isa. IV, 3 is quoted as 
furnishing either an instance or the original precedent of such 
a replacement of the Messiah by Israel, somewhat after the 
fashion of a nation setting aside its monarchical ruler in order 
to turn itself into a republic and taking to itself all the titles 
and insignia of the former occupant of the throne. But the 
passage from Isaiah does not require or even favor this inter- 
pretation. In view of the fact that it calls the mercies of David 
“sure” i.e., unalterable, reliable, it seems absurd to find in a 
statement emphasizing this very thing the idea of their abro- 
gation and transfer to another subject. 


2For a more extensive discussion of this point cp. the author’s article 
on, “The Eschatology of the Psalter,” in Princeton Theological Review, 
1920, pp. 31-34, where also the most important literature is given. 

3 The parallel would of course disappear, if the individual understanding 
of “the Servant of Jehovah” were entirely eliminated from those prophe- 
cies, as is done by Giesebrecht, a. o. 


“THE CHRIST” 107 


Next we must enquire what is the original meaning of the 
term “to anoint,’ and to what extent its Old Testament associa- 
tions were carried over by Jesus in the application of the idea to 
Himself. ‘‘Mashiach” is a stronger form linguistically than the 
Participle Passive ‘““Mashuach” would have been. The latter 
only affirms that an act of anointing has taken place; the other 
form expresses that the recipient of the anointing in virtue of it 
possesses the abiding quality of “an Anointed One.” The dif- 
ference is about that between “one who was (on a certain oc- 
casion) sent” and “an ambassador.” Attention, therefore, is 
called no less to the character borne than to the appointive 
origin of it. The Old Testament already strongly stressed the 
appointment, as may be seen from the Second Psalm. In fact 
it is the first element in the anointing, making it before other 
things a declarative act. Not even where a regular succession 
of kings had been provided for, as in the dynasty of David, was 
it omitted or deemed unnecessary. The theory that not all new 
ascendants of the throne, but only those who were the first of 
their family to become king, or at least only those who had 
rivals in their claim to the dignity, were anointed, has no suff- 
cient basis, but, if it had, this circumstance would only the more 
strongly bring out the importance and decisiveness of the divine 
approval with reference to the office.* But that all successors of 
David were actually anointed follows clearly from the current 
designation of the king as “the Anointed of Jehovah.” The 
parable in Judges IX (“the trees went forth at a time to anoint 
a king over themselves’) shows that the customary way of ap- 
pointing a king was through anointing him, Perhaps it is not 
amiss to find in this regular repetition of the act in the case of 
each Davidic king a reminder that the real dignity and power of 
the office were not something which it inherently carried within 
itself, but which had to be ever anew derived from Jehovah. 
Our Lord’s arguing with the Pharisees about the sufficiency of 
the succession from David furnishes at least a point of contact 
for this. That something legally authoritative lies back of 
Christhood is also implied in the connection between “Master” 
and “Christ,” Matt. XXIII, 10. Jesus’ attitude is throughout 


4Cp. Weinel in Zeitschrift f. d. Alttestam. Wiss., Vol. XVIII, p. 21. 


108 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


that He labors under a law of commission to which in a large 
part the authoritativeness of his procedure both in teaching and 
in acting is due. [ven where He emphasizes most strongly the 
nature-oneness between Himself and God, as in Matt. XI, 27, 
the reference to the actual deliverance of the right to reveal 
and to teach is not lacking. The favorite modern idea, as 
though in the life and development of our Lord everything pro- 
ceeded with the naiveté and smoothness of a growing self-ap- 
prehension, is not in accord with that aspect of his ministry 
which the Christ-name expresses. If in present-day usage the 
name Christ is in danger of suffering neglect, and the name 
Jesus, mostly without realisation of its etymological import, 
has become well-nigh the exclusive designation, this is perhaps 
a symptom of the generally shifting attitude in the religious 
appraisal of our Lord from the official to the purely human. 
Paul and the whole early Church in making and favoring the 
combination “Jesus-Christ’” expressed a strong feeling of ap- 
preciation for the legitimate standing of Jesus in his office of 
the Christ. The voice from heaven at both the baptism and the 
transfiguration in its second statement “whom I have chosen” 
places at the very beginning of our Lord’s ministry the attesta- 
tion of his holding it under the sovereignty of God. And from 
this peculiar form of introduction the office derives a peculiar 
coloring of authoritativeness throughout. To judge from the 
view of the Master, those who would eliminate as much as 
possible all elements of binding obligation from the conscious- 
ness of his professed followers are out of touch with at least 
this one aspect of the origins of the faith. 

Next to the declarative, appointive element there enters into 
the concept of “‘anointing”’ the close association with God and 
the consequent sacrosanctness of the one on whom the anointing 
has been bestowed. Through the pouring on of the oil the per- 
son anointed is brought into close contact with Jehovah, so close 
in fact that injury done to him amounts to sacrilege. Against 
Jehovah’s anointed no one dares put forth his hand, even though 
personal enmity should instigate him to do so, I Sam. XXIV, 
6; XXVI, 9; II Sam. I, 14; king-murder is a most terrible 
sin; king-cursing and the cursing of God are named together, 


“THE CHRIST” 109 


I Kings XXI, 10, 13. The full phrase “Jehovah’s Anointed” 
serves to bring out the seriousness of the crime; evidently the 
genitive ““Jehovah’s” is not so much felt as expressive of the 
source of anointing, but rather as expressing the appurtenance 
to Jehovah resulting from the ceremony. A peculiar shade of 
reverence appears to have entered into the feeling of the people 
for their king, a reverence partaking far more of a religious 
than of a merely patriotic character. Of this association of 
ideas also the traces are not lacking in the mind of Jesus. It is 
safe to say that what passes currently for an unreflected ex- 
pression of religious feeling towards God has in it a strong 
ingredient of official attachment and devotion to his Sender, 
although, of course, the two would naturally mix, and it is im- 
possible for us to separate them. With the anointing goes the 
holiness, and the name “Holy One” applied to Jesus on the sup- 
position of his Messiahship, and not repudiated by Him, ex- 
presses this. The disciples come into awesome contact with it 
through the miracle of the great draft of fishes and the perspec- 
tive it opened to them of what was stored up in Jesus of super- 
natural Messianic potencies, Lk. V, 1-11. The experience made 
Peter exclaim: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O 
Lord.” It explains to some extent also the atmosphere of 
mystery enveloping Jesus as He walks through the Gospels. 
And it is one of the channels through which the apperception 
of that which was even higher than Messiahship broke in upon 
his followers. 

The bestowal of the Holy Spirit belongs on its one side to 
these two first elements of the anointing so far discussed. The 
very gift of the Spirit amounted to a declaration of Messiah- 
ship on the part of God. To be sure, not every impartation of 
the Spirit has such significance, for in that case every prophet 
would be a Messiah. But the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus 
at the baptism was quite unique; it was intended for permanent 
possession, and not limited by any measure of communication, 
Jno. III, 34. Peter in Acts X, 38 may thus in identifying the 
baptism with Jesus’ anointing have understood the gift of the 
Spirit as in part a declarative act, although the emphasis here 
plainly rests upon the anointing as an equipment. And, as re- 


110 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


gards the second aspect, that the possession of the Spirit marks 
its bearer as partaking of the holiest intimacies of God is one of 
the common-places of Biblical teaching. Therein lies the rea- 
son why sin against the Holy Spirit in his Messianic operation 
is declared unforgivable. In the Holy Spirit the blasphemer 
touches the very sanctities of God, which inhere in the Messiah. 
Peter likewise finds the extreme criminality of the action of the 
Jews in this—that it was directed against God’s “Anointed,” 
Acts TVii26.'27, 

The conception of “anointing” has, however, still a third 
element rendering it important for understanding the Christ- 
hood of our Lord. The anointing implies that not merely a 
certain stamp is placed upon the anointed, nor merely a close 
bond of appurtenance established between him and God; it like- 
wise involves that something substantial is communicated from 
God to him. Whatever may have been the original associations 
of the element of oil in such an act, particularly in pagan ritual, 
whether it was superstitiously supposed to convey a certain 
“holiness-substance,” there can be no doubt that among Israel 
it was regularly connected with the Spirit of Jehovah. Here 
also the Old Testament antecedents are decisive. In I Sam. 
XVI, 3 the fact is clearly established: when Samuel takes 
the horn of oil and with it anoints David, the Spirit of Jehovah 
comes mightily upon the latter. The conclusive proof for this 
sacramental significance of the oil lies in the development of the 
verb “‘to anoint,’ which in course of time acquires the meta- 
phorical meaning of “to endow with the Spirit,” and is so em- 
ployed where no actual manipulation of oil is involved. Such 
is the usage throughout the New Testament, where, with the ex- 
ception of James V, 14, the ceremony has disappeared, and 
only the thing signified remained. II Cor. I, 21, is highly sug- 
gestive here: “Now He that establishes us with you in Christ, 
and anointed us, is God: who also sealed us and gave the ear- 
nest of the Spirit in our hearts.’’ This shows how entirely self- 
understood the ideas of anointing and of imparting of the Spirit 
were in the time of Paul. Nor can there be any doubt about 
this applying equally much to the mind of Jesus. If He ascribes 


“THE CHRIST” 111 


the utterance of his Messianic words and the performance of 
his Messianic acts to the Spirit, He can have derived them from 
no other source than from the occasion when the Spirit had 
come upon Him. To Him the baptism must have been the 
anointing at the opening of his public career, and the anointing 
must have been that which fully made Him the Christ. And 
such possession of the Spirit was that which marked his entire 
life, with all its activities, to Himself and to others, as belong- 
ing to the sphere of the supernatural. For the Spirit is to Jesus, 
while not excluded from the specifically ethical and religious, 
before all other things the author of God’s wonderworld in 
general. 

Thus far we have looked at the Christhood, and at the anoint- 
ing from which it derives its name, from the point of view of 
the royal office only. The question arises whether the priestly 
and prophetic functions pertaining to the Messiah are any- 
where brought in connection with the anointing act. If so, 
then they would cease being mere concomitants of the Messiah- 
ship and appear as integral parts of it. In the Old Testa- 
ment the anointing is by no means restricted to the king. The 
High Priest is called “the Anointed Priest,’ Lev. IV, 3, 5, 16; 
VI,15. The word here rendered by “anointed” is not the Pas- 
sive Participle ““Mashuah,”’ but the adjectival form ‘“Mashiah,” 
so that the phrase may be read “the priest, the Messiah,” or “the 
Messiah-priest.” There is evidently more here than a simple re- 
flection on the mode of induction into office; the word has be- 
come a semi-title. According to Ex. XXVIII, 41; XXX, 30; 
XL, 15; Lev. VII, 36; X, 7; Num. III, 3, the ordinary priests 
were likewise anointed, but did not bear the title “Anointed 
Priest,” the ordinary participial form being used in their case. 
The prophets were not regularly anointed, and consequently no 
regular designation resulted as in the order of kings and priests, 
cp. I Kings XIX, 16. The anointing of the king and that of 
the priest are probably, while one in their root-conception, his- 
torically two co-existing institutions. Neither of the two need 
be supposed to have developed out of the other. The view has 
been held that the king-anointing was derived from the priestly 


112 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


ceremony, so that the rite applied to the king was understood 
to impart to him priestly dignity and powers.” On the other 
hand Wellhausen has suggested the opposite view, that origi- 
nally no priestly anointing existed. In ancient times the priest 
was inducted through the act of “millé jad,” “filling of the 
hand,” Judges XVII, 5, 12; I Kings XIII, 33. The later rit- 
ual, while retaining this practice, added to it the rite of anoint- 
ing. This “filling of the hand” originally meant, according to 
Wellhausen, the first payment made to the hired priest, and was 
as such regarded symbolical of his appointment. Then, in the 
later representation of the Priest Code, its meaning was 
changed so as to signify the placing of the pieces of the first 
sacrifice upon the hands of the just consecrated priest, that he 
might ‘‘wave” them before Jehovah. Wellhausen further be- 
lieves to have discovered the origin of this change in the cere- 
monial. After the exile Joshua let himself be anointed, in 
order to qualify for the office of secular ruler to whom alone 
previously the anointing had been administered, Zech. IV, 14.° 
This view is implausible for several reasons. According to 
Jud. XVII. 5, Micah fills the hand of his son whom he could 
scarcely have remunerated for ministering as his priest. If the 
phrase “‘to fill the hand” meant to pay the first wages or to pay 
wages in general, it would scarcely have been confined to the 
hiring of a priest. As a matter of fact, it nowhere occurs in 
other relations. Wellhausen, to be sure, thinks this explainable 
from the circumstance that in ancient times the priesthood was 
the only paid profession. But later this was surely not so. The 
prophet even makes it a reproach that the priest gives Thorah 
for hire, Mic. III, 11. Nor has the argument derived from 
Zech. IV, 14, any force for proving that the royal anointing 
developed out of the priestly rite. Joshua and Zerubbabel are 
here called “the two sons of the oil,” ie., the two anointed 
ones. As stated, it is assumed that Joshua here let himself be 


5 Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, p. 413; Benzinger, Hebr. 
Archeologie, p. 254; Nowack, Hebr. Archeologie, I, 310. Stade subse- 
quently abandoned this view. Cp. Weinel, Zeitsch. f. d. Alit. Wissen- 
schaft, XVIII (1808), 50, note 2. 

6 Wellhausen, Isr. u. Jiidische Geschichte, p. 149; Weinel, Zeitsch. f. d. 
Alttestm. Wiss., XVIII, pp. 63-65. 


“THE CHRIST” 113 


anointed in order to appear the head of the congregation. The 
ceremony was meant to make him priest-king over the people, 
and this is what the high-priesthood henceforward actually was. 
The fatal objection to this aspect of the theory is, that the 
anointing of Joshua could not possibly have borne such sig- 
nificance so long as Zerubbabel was still on the scene. Zerub- 
babel as a “‘son of oil” could only bear this title as the royal rep- 
resentative of Jehovah.’ 

There is no ground then to call in question the antiquity of 
the priestly anointing, or to derive it from the anointing of 
kings. Much, however, can be said in favor of the view that 
through the anointing, which both kings and priests received in 
common, certain functions of the priesthood were communi- 
cated to the king at his accession to the kingdom. Some of the 
kings offered sacrifice, and this can hardly be accounted for by 
the prerogative alleged to have belonged to every family-father. 
David danced before Jehovah, girded with the priestly ‘‘ephod 
bad,” on the occasion of the return of the ark to Zion, II Sam. 
VI, 14. Both David and Solomon at the great assemblies 
blessed the people, II Sam. VI, 18; I Kings VIII, 14. The im- 
pression is created that the kings exercised priestly functions. 
On the other hand, the fact of a special order of priesthood 
existing would indicate that kingship and priesthood were not 
identical offices. This is an instance where the Old Testament 
institutional lines had not as yet entirely converged. But that 
they once would do so seems to be not obscurely intimated by 
the above facts. And that in the consciousness of Jesus there 
lay a clear apprehension of this goal appears from his appro- 
priation of the prophecy of Isaiah for himself, in which the 
anointing applies to “the Servant of Jehovah,” the most priestly 
of Messianic figures, Isa. LXI, 1; Lk. IV, 18. The task of 
the Servant described in this prophecy also has far more priestly 
than regal coloring. Peter, probably in dependence upon the 
same prophetic word, emphasizes, as the result of the anointing, 
features and acts lying in the priestly sphere, Acts IV, 27; X, 
38. There was still another feature for the expression of 


7 Wellhausen, Proleg., 4, pp. 127, 149 ff.; Benzinger, Heb. Arche@ologie, p. 
407 ; differently in 2d. ed. 


114 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


which the inclusion of the priestly office within the Messianic 
anointing offered an opportunity. The royal Christhood is 
not equally transmissible, as the priestly is. For our Lord to 
think of Himself in terms of anointing would create room for 
that aspect of Messianic self-communication which looms so 
large in the discharge of his ministry. In his argument with 
the Scribes He quotes from the Melchizedek-Psalm, in which 
the regal and the priestly dignities are united in one Person. 
If the priestly ministration among his people was brought by 
Jesus in connection with his anointing, this is the strongest 
conceivable proof that a far more official motivation underlay 
his soteric activity than is commonly assumed. There are not 
two figures of Jesus in the Gospels, the one clothed in the 
‘mantle of royalty, the other bent upon the pursuit of purely 
humanitarian tasks; these two are one and the same. ‘They 
have their common principle in the requirements imposed and 
the equipment conferred by his Messianic anointing. 

From the thought that the Spirit anoints Jesus, and at the 
same time forms the gift which the anointing carries with it- 
self, the transition seems to be easy to the representation of 
Jesus as “Anointer” in virtue of his being “Anointed.” The 
passive here naturally, almost inevitably, shades off into the 
active. So far as the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels is con- 
cerned there is no evidence of his having pursued this train of 
thought. That which He confers upon his followers is no- 
where called “an anointing,’ not even with reference to the 
Apostles however much the richness and the Spirit-source and 
the Spirit-make-up of the gift might have codperated in sug- 
gesting this. Both Paul and John, however, are familiar, and 
presuppose their readers to be familiar, with so much of it at 
least that the Christian receives an anointing analogous to that 
of Christ : “Now He that establishes us with you in Christ, and 
anointed us, is God,” II Cor. I, 21. It will be observed, how- 
ever, that even here it is God the Father, not Christ, who has 
conferred the anointment analogous to that of Christ. As for 
I Jno, II, 20, 27, the exegesis depends on whether the words 
“the Holy One,” and the pronominal forms ‘‘of Him” and “in 
Him” be understood of God or of Christ. The context plainly 


“THE CHRIST” 115 


speaks in favor of the latter. The Kpiowa received by them 
and abiding in them and teaching them is from the “Christos,” 
and consists in nothing else but the Holy Spirit. 

_ The same principle of the Messianic receiver communicating 
what He has received to his followers finds expression, though 
without reference to the figure of anointing, in the divine in- 
junction given John the Baptist, Jno. I, 33: “He said unto me, 
Upon whosoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abid- 
ing upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.” 
The figure that here binds the two together is that of “baptiz- 
ing.” Perhaps it is this figure that, except in the name 
“Christ,” has almost wholly replaced that of “‘anointing.”’ 

The careful tracing of these fugitive trains of imagery that 
weave themselves around the anointing enshrined in the Christ- 
name would be rendered entirely superfluous, if we could adopt 
the etymological hypothesis proposed by Lagarde.* According 
to this scholar, ‘“Messiah” is not to be derived from the com- 
mon Aramaic “Mashichah,” but corresponds to a Nabataean 
“Mishshichah,” which would make it an intensive, active form, 
signifying “one who professionally anoints,” viz., with. the 
Spirit. Lagarde claims that on this view the e-sound in the 
first syllable and the duplication of the sibilant can best be ac- 
counted for. The linguistic argument is not decisive because 
the Greek transliteration of Semitic forms sometimes puts e 
for a, e.g., “Jephies” for “Japhia,’’ II Sam. V, 15, and also 
sometimes duplicates the s, e.g., ‘“Jessai” for “Jishai.”” The An- 
cient Versions render the name passively, Sept. “Christos,” 
Vulg. “Unctus.” In the Old Testament the expected eschato- 
logical king nowhere appears as anointing. This is a later idea 
meeting us first in the New Testament, and even there but 
rarely. Besides the phrase of baptizing with the Spirit, already 
commented upon, and a couple of passages where the reception 
of an anointing by the Christian occurs there is not only nothing 
to support this interpretation, but the entire drift of the doc- 
trinal tradition would have violently to be deflected to make 
out of “the Anointed One’ uniformly “the Anointer.” It 


8 Abhandlungen der Gottinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, XXXV, 
PP. 93-109. 


116 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


would be a case of universal misunderstanding on the largest 
of scales of the typical name and title of Jesus. 

In conclusion it may not be amiss to express a word of ad- 
miration for the theological tradition of the Church, which in 
defining the threefold office of Christ as Prophet, Priest and 
King has with fine instinctive feeling seized upon what is 
actually the innermost core of the Savior’s Messiahship. A . 
better formula in this sphere cannot be devised. It is exhaus- 
tive and keeps in closest touch with the etymological import of 
the name. 


CuHapTerR IX 
STU ELE. LOR D7 ae 


THE name Kupiog “Lord,” is in the New Testament, aside 
from the Gospels, a specific designation of the exalted Savior. 
Peter declares that God, through the resurrection, made the 
crucified One “both Lord and Christ,” Acts II, 36. According 
to Paul also “‘the name above every name,’ iene is none other 
than the Kyrios-name, was bestowed upon Jesus in reward for 
the obedience of his humiliation, and therefore subsequently to 
it, Phil. Il, 9; cp. for the same connection Rom. XIV, 9. 
Obviously it is a name expressive of the Messianic sovereignty 
which our Lord to a new degree entered upon when raised from 
the dead and to which He Himself refers immediately before 
his ascension in the words, “All authority was given unto me in 
heaven and on earth,” Matt. XXVIII, 18. | 

Notwithstanding this post-resurrection origin, not a few in- 
stances occur in the Gospels where Jesus is Ween with this 
name or even applies it to Himself, and apparently with a pe- 
culiar heightened accent going beyond the ordinary form of 
polite address. Such manner of intercourse can not well be 
imagined without involving a consciousness and approval on 
Jesus’ part of the unusual role in which it placed Him. Was 
this consciousness of the sub-Messianic kind, or did it rise to 
the height of the Messianic? In the latter case we may confi- 
dently expect important information in regard to the content 
and the associations of the Messianic function in Jesus’ mind. 

The problem may be formulated in a somewhat different 
form by asking whether this Gospel-usage of the name and 
title stands in the line or forms a solid preformation of the 
usage soon afterwards to prevail in the early Church, or has 
perhaps no vital connection with the latter, so that the thought 
of continuity between the two will have to be given up. 


In order to reach clearness in a discussion notorious for its 
117 


118 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


snares and pitfalls, certain distinctions should be sharply drawn 
at the outset. The first of these relates to the persons who 
speak of Jesus as “the Lord” in the Gospels. Are these in 
certain given instances the Evangelists as authors, or are they 
the personages within the Gospel story? It will make a great 
difference for the purpose of our enquiry whether the Evan- 
gelist says: “And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion 
on her,” Lk. VII, 13, or whether the disciples are introduced 
as saying: ‘““The Lord has need of him,” Lk. XIX, 34. Ina 
case of the former kind we have, of course, nothing but an in- 
stance of the custom, generally prevailing when the Gospels 
were written, of referring to Jesus as “the Lord.” The Evan- 
gelist must have followed this custom in his daily speech, and 
no reason can be discovered why he should have refrained from 
it in writing, even though it should have been an anachronism. 
For not only the Evangelist but also the readers for whom he 
proximately wrote daily so expressed themselves. Grammati- 
cally analyzed, though, of course, not consciously realized, the 
language means no more than this, “He, whom we now call 
the Lord.” No legitimate inference can be drawn from such a 
case as to either the writer’s opinion or the actual facts about 
the naming of Jesus during his earthly life. Even if one were 
to assume that the title was never given to Jesus while on 
earth it would be the height of pedantry to charge the Evan- 
gelists on that account with stylistic slovenliness, even if they 
had made the freest use of it for the purpose of their nar- 
rative. 

In point of fact there are but few instances in which the 
Gospel writers, referring to the pre-resurrection period, appear 
to have availed themselves of this their indisputable literary 
privilege. Matt. III, 3, and Mk. I, 3, quote from Isa. XL, 3 
(combined in Mark with Mal. III, 1) to the effect that John 
the Baptist went before “the Lord.” It is uncertain, however, 
whether by “the Lord” they mean us to understand Jesus, or, 
as apparently the prophetic word intends it, Jehovah, or per- 
haps assume the identity of Jesus as “the Lord” with God 
bearing the same name in the Greek Old Testament. On the 
second supposition even these two instances, the only ones in 


“THE LORD” 119 


Matthew and Mark before the resurrection, fall away. The 
same uncertainty exists in regard to the word of the Angel, Lk. 
I, 17, and of Zacharias, Lk. I, 76. On the other hand Luke 
himself in the text of his Gospel, as it lies before us, repeatedly 
speaks of “The Lord.” Twelve cases of this occur: VII, 13, 31; 
PEAT oOOsAD aos Allyide: AIL iss XVIT Geet LG: 
XIX, 8; XXII, 61. But the ancient versions seem to show that 
in all these Lucan passages “the Lord” may be a later substi- 
tute for “Jesus” or “He,” introduced from a liturgical motive.* 
In John there are the following cases of “the Lord” in the dis- 
course of the Evangelist relating to the period before the resur- 
rection: IV, 1; VI, 23; XI, 22. Nothing certain can be built 
on the text of the first. Hort says about it (The New Testa- 
ment in Greek, Appendix, p. 76): “On the whole the text of 
the verse can not be accepted as certainly free from doubt.” 
Zahn likewise feels doubtful about the text, and that partly on 
the ground that John elsewhere does not introduce “the Lord” 
in his narrative.” The two other Johannine cases have this pe- 
culiarity, that they occur in side-remarks, inserted parentheti- 
cally into the discourse by the Evangelist. One can conceive 
of them as marginal annotations written by the author’s own 
hand. Consequently they should not be counted as clear evi- 
dence of what the writer made his practice in the regular 
straightforward flow of narrative. There is obviously in such 
cases a greater measure of detachment from the matter recorded 
than in the ordinary narrative. 

We find, therefore, in all our Gospels a remarkable scarcity 
of references to Jesus as “the Lord” from the Evangelists 
themselves. And it should be further noted that, when these 
writers come to deal with the period after the resurrection, 


1The above view, it should be stated, is not the only possible explana- 
tion of the phenomena in Luke. According to Foerster (Herr ist Jesus), 
p. 213, the reason can be found in the destination of Luke’s Gospel for 
Christians who were already familiar with Jesus as “the Lord.” Matthew 
and Mark, on the other hand, intended for missionary propaganda, do not 
from the outset introduce a recognition of Jesus to the acceptance of which 
they still had to win their readers. But, apart from the critical implica- 
tions, this leaves unexplained the concurrence of the versions named in 
omitting “the Lord.” 

2 Das Evangelium des Johannes, p. 226, 


120 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the same abstention is no longer observed, except by Mat- 
thew. Mark says, XVI, 19, “The Lord Jesus was received 
up into heaven,” and speaks in vs. 20 of “the Lord working 
with them.” Similarly we read in Luke, “They found not the 
body of the Lord,’ XXIV, 3. And in Jno. XX, 20: “The 
disciples therefore were glad when they saw the Lord.” In 
XXI, 12: “And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art 
thou? knowing that it was the Lord.” Still, even after the 
resurrection none of the Evangelists drops the old way of 
speaking. On the contrary, after as before the point named, 
they go on employing the proper name and the pronoun. 

The facts in regard to this author’s use or non-use now lie 
before us. What can we gather from them? ‘The Evangelists 
evidently agree with Peter and Paul in dating from the resur- 
rection a richer and higher significance of the Kyrios-name. 
They indicate this position by a stray employment soon after 
that point. Negatively they do so by almost entirely refraining 
from its use during the earlier period. This latter feature 
might possibly be explained from a special fondness for the 
name “Jesus,” so that there really would be no avoidance of 
the Kyrios-title, but only an unintentional submergence of it. 
But it is doubtful whether, in point of preciousness, the en- 
dearing “Jesus” had any advantage over the submissive “‘Lord.” 
The early Christians were not so one-sidedly occupied with 
“the historical Jesus” as certain groups of modern Christians 
are. Their preoccupation in daily intercourse and prayer was 
rather with the Christ in heaven. He was “the Lord” par ex- 
cellence. Especially must this have been so with a man of the 
type of John, whose mind was so post-resurrection-centered as 
to lead him to lay stress, in the earthly life of Jesus, on pre- 
cisely those aspects of it that were prefigurative of the glorified 
state. Here, then, one would a priori expect a generous use of 
“the Lord.” If it does not appear, we are disposed to look 
for some counteracting motive. Is it implausible to find this 
in a sense of historical propriety on the part of the Evangelists? 
The writers, it seems, desired to make the very framework in 
which they set the picture of Jesus’ life of a coloring harmoni- 
ous with the picture itself. Feeling that through their literary 


“THE LORD” 121 


presence, as it were, at the scenes of our Savior’s earthly life, 
they witnessed something differently complexioned from the 
glory of the exalted Christ, they refrained from introducing a 
title so closely connected with the latter. In this respect they 
evince a sensitiveness even greater than can be exacted from 
the average historian. 

So much for the narrative-practice of the writers. Now, 
turning to the other member of the distinction drawn, that 
relating to the use of “Lord” by persons within the Gospel 
story, we find this giving birth to a second distinction. A dif- 
ference must be recognized between “‘Lord” as a mode of ad- 
dress and “the Lord” in instances of reference to Jesus as a 
third person. It is evident that the two things distinguished 
are sufficiently different to deserve careful discrimination. ‘The 
twofold use of the English “Sir’’ may illustrate this. In the 
common mutual address of people by “Yes, Sir” or “No, Sir’ 
the word has quite different associations than where some 
nobleman is addressed as “Sir A” or “Sir B.’’ We proceed 
to deal with each of these rubrics in the Gospel record sepa- 
rately. 

The following are the cases where Jesus is spoken of as 
“Lord,” “the Lord,” “my Lord” by people in the Gospels: in 
Lk. I, 43 Elizabeth greets Mary as “the mother of my Lord’’; 
according to Lk. II, 11, the angels speak to the shepherds of 
“a Savior, which is Christ the Lord”; in three instances, each 
recorded in all the Synoptics, Jesus designates Himself as 
“lord”; the first of these is the case of the Sabbath-contro- 
versy, where He declares the Son-of-Man to be lord of the 
Sabbath; the second occurs in the argument about the Davidic 
sonship of the Messiah, where Jesus proves from the Psalm 
that the Messiah is David’s Lord; the third is in connection 
with the entry into Jerusalem, where the disciples are instructed 
to say to the owners of the colt: “The Lord has need of him.” 
Further, according to Mk. V, 19, Jesus instructs the healed 
demoniac: “Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great 
things the Lord has done for thee.” All this belongs to the 
time before the resurrection. After the resurrection we have: 


Matt. XXVIII, 6, the words of the Angels to the women: 


122 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


“Come and see the place where the Lord lay”; Lk. XXIV, 34, 
where the disciples exclaim: “The Lord is risen indeed.” 
Finally, Mary’s words, Jno, XX, 2: “They have taken away 
the Lord out of the sepulchre’’; vs. 13: “They have taken away 
my Lord’; and in vs. 18 her report to the disciples, that “she 
had seen the Lord.” * 

In endeavoring to ascertain what these passages imply we 
may eliminate, as of uncertain bearing, Mk. V, 19. Here “the 
Lord” may possibly refer to (God. Although the man carries 
out the injunction of Jesus to proclaim what “the Lord” has 
done by publishing what Jesus has done, this action is by no 
means decisive for Jesus’ intent or for the writer’s intent to 
identify Jesus and “the Lord.” Luke certainly has not so 
taken it, VIII, 39. The desire of Jesus to keep in the back- 
ground in similar cases may have come into play. He would 
then have enjoined the man to refer the cure to God, but the 
man, not heeding the injunction, would have brought on Jesus 
the publicity the latter wished to avoid. It is also somewhat 
strange that Jesus on this particular occasion, and for no ap- 
parent reason, should have called Himself ‘the Lord.” In the 
message to the owner of the requisitioned colt it is different, 
as we shall presently see. 

The remaining cases cited fall into two rubrics. In some 
of them “Lord” appears as a formal title, in others it is an 
adjectival attribute. ‘Lord of the Sabbath” means, of course, 
nothing else but authoritative disposer of that institution. Up 
to a certain point this applies also to the lordship over the colt; 
it expresses the right of disposal of the animal. At the same 
time there is something more here, in so far as this right of 
disposal is connected with the fact that Jesus is recognizable to 
the owner as “the Lord” in general. Acquaintance with the 
designation as expressing a certain shade of recognition within 
a certain circle is certainly implied; otherwise it could not have 
been a means of identification.* But, closely looked at, even the 


3 We leave out of account here the other instances where there is doubt 
about the title referring to Jesus or to God, cp. Lk., I, 17, 28. 

#There is an exegesis of this episode which would entirely eliminate it 
as evidence for the recognition of the Kyrios-character of Jesus during his 
walk on earth. It is based on the reading of some of the Versions. Syra 


“THE LORD” 123 


Sabbath-saying, while not suggesting a title, has a larger back- 
ground of comprehensive sovereignty. For it will be noticed 
that both in Mark and Luke it reads: “The Son-of-Man”’ is 
lord also (or even) of the Sabbath.” Jesus has a wide lordship 
over things in which many other, though less weighty, mat- 
ters are included. In the other case, since Jesus was not the 
ordinary owner of the animal, and an extraordinary right of 
use is assumed, it follows that the latter can not have been re- 
stricted to this one animal, but must have included other things. 
There is but one step from the ascription of such a compre- 
hensive ownership to the expression of this fact in a fixed 
designation, and for that the Kyrios-name would have been 
the almost inevitable form. 

Again in the argument about the Davidic sonship of the 
Messiah He is placed not only as sovereign above David, but 
this relation is also definitely fixed through David’s calling Him 
“my Lord.’ Besides, the main purport of the argument lies 
not in the genealogical sphere; it is to vindicate for the Mes- 
siah a position of transcendental sovereignty in protest against 
the earth-bound idea of the scribes expressing itself in the 
other title “Son of David.” We shall not be far amiss if 
paraphrasing: “The Messiah, being Lord of even so high a 
person as David, and that after David’s death, must needs be 
regarded as Lord universal.” 

Once more, when Elizabeth in her salutation to Mary names 
the unborn child “my Lord,” this falls in no respect short of 
a formal Messianic title. The question might indeed arise, 


Vetus renders “its lord” both in Mk. and Lk.; the Curetonian Syriac, the 
ZEthiopian and Armenian Versions have in Matthew “their lord” (the 
Plural referring to the ass and its colt). These readings, either in transla- 
tion only, or also in the text presupposed, take “the lord” as the lord, ie., 
the literal owner, of the animal or animals. The implication is that Jesus 
instructed the disciples to tell whoever might question them about their 
procedure that the man owning the animals had momentary need of their 
use, but would, when through with them, return them to the place of 
keeping. There are two objections to this. In the first place, it neglects 
the force of “again”: “he will send them back again,’ which seems to 
imply that not the owner but some borrower would restore the animals. 
Secondly, it is on this view not sufficiently taken into account how im- 
possible it must have been (we shall not now say for Jesus, but) for the 
Evangelists and their translators to ascribe such a deliberate practice of 
deception to Jesus. 


124 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


whether it did not actually pass beyond this and anticipate, 
through extraordinary prophetic insight, the later “Kyrios”’ as 
a title of Deity. The other interpretation, according to which 
this is only a strong case of extravagantly polite Oriental salu- 
tation, as though Elizabeth, desiring to honor Mary as her 
mistress, had done so indirectly through the formula “mother 
of my Lord,” hardly satisfies, because in such a case the indi- 
rectness of the greeting would have contributed nothing to its 
force, but rather detracted from it. Between cousins, more- 
over, such extravagance of politeness would hardly seem, even 
in Oriental style of address, in place. The feeling expressed 
here is not that of politeness, but that of reverence, and the 
cause for the reverence must lie in the unborn child, and there- 
fore can not concern the child as such, but its destiny and 
dignity. 

The statement of the Angels to the shepherds, if the usual 
text-reading be retained (“Christ, the Lord,” and not “the 
Lord’s Christ”) treats “the Lord” as a formal title entirely 
on a line with the title “Christ,” to which it is joined, unless 
we give to “Christos” its adjective sense and render ‘“‘the 
anointed Lord.” But even in that case “Lord’’ would bear no 
other interpretation than that of a Messianic title. The only 
way to avoid acknowledgment that Jesus is here, at his very 
birth, technically called “Lord,” would lie through the altering 
of the text, above hinted at. If, from desire for assimilation 
to Lk. II, 26, one should prefer to read “the Lord’s Christ,” 
“Kyrios” would, of course, refer to God, and the passage would 
be eliminated from our investigation. 

In the instances from after the resurrection, it is plain that 
the Angel at the tomb and the disciples use the title in a high 
sense fraught with reverence for a new unique dignity in Jesus. 
Apart from this, however, these passages are interesting, be- 
cause they prove a degree of familiarity with the title through 
previous use. It is, of course, not inconceivable that through 
the event of the resurrection, overwhelming as it must have 
been, the title as a new thing might have suddenly sprung to the 
lips of the disciples. But the Angel presupposes that it is known 
to the women, and Mary makes use of it before she is aware of 


“THE LORD” 125 


the resurrection. A flood of new meaning will have streamed 
into it; in itself it was of earlier origin. ‘This suggests that 
the pre-resurrection cases above commented upon were by no 
means so isolated as might otherwise appear. It can not have 
been an entirely exceptional thing among the disciples to speak 
of Jesus as “the Lord.” 

A few words should be devoted to the parables in which 
Jesus, chiefly towards the close of his ministry, speaks of 
a xiplosg or xUpiog TYG oixlag or oixodecndrns for the mo- 
ment absent from his servants who keep the house for him, 
but expected to return in the near future. The references are 
Matt. XXIV, 45-51; XXV, 13-30; Mk. XIII, 33-37; Lk. 
XII, 35-38; 41-46; XIII, 25-28. To these may be added the 
semi-parabolic speech of Matt. X, 25, where Jesus refers to 
Himself, in contrast with the disciples, as oixodeondrys. This 
-goes in so far beyond the parables cited as Jesus there leaves 
the reference to Himself implicit. In fact, if one were to insist 
upon it, he might perhaps reject the reference to Jesus as due 
to misplaced allegorizing of the parables, confining the point 
of comparison to the duty of watchfulness required in both 
situations. But this would certainly be a strained interpreta- 
tion. Through the very idea of watchfulness as incumbent 
upon the disciples the figure of Jesus is injected into the para- 
bles. The disciples wait for Him, not merely as others wait 
for a lord, but they wait for Jesus precisely because He is “the 
Lord.” And the “coming” is said with such obvious reference 
to the parousia, that an allegorical identification of the xvpuos 
or oixodeondtng With Jesus inevitably ensues. Could the dis- 
ciples fail to understand this? And could they possibly have 
understood it, except on the basis of a realisation that between 
Jesus and themselves an owner-doulos relation existed? Of 
course these parables are spoken from the anticipated stand- 
point that Jesus will in the future be absent. Their eschato- 
logical character in this respect is quite in harmony with the 
eschatological setting in Matt. VII, 22. But He was “the 
Lord” before leaving them. 

Thus far the enquiry has been based entirely upon the data 
of the Gospels. To some extent, however, the later records fur- 


126 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


nish reminiscences of the Gospel-ministry usage. The way Paul 
speaks of the brother(s) of “the Lord,’ I Cor. IX, 5; Gal. I, 
19, is most naturally taken to mean: the brother(s) of Him who 
was even then the Lord. Perhaps not necessarily beyond the 
early mother-church, but surely as far back as that carries 
“Maranatha,” I Cor, XVI, 22. 

From the foregoing we may draw the conclusion that in this 
mode of referring to our Lord during his lifetime on earth 
there was a real anticipation of the subsequent usage. He was 
even then to not a few “the Lord,” although they could hardly 
always have realized with clearness what a stupendous signifi- 
cance there was stored up in this name. It is not impossible, 
that, as a Jewish Christological term, the title may have been 
older than the Gospel history period. At any rate the testimony 
of the Evangelists as to its early use during the ministry of 
Jesus is not open to doubt. We need not suspect that there is 
in this a carrying back of the later custom of naming Jesus 
“the Lord” into the earthly life of the Savior. As has already 
been shown, the Evangelists observe great restraint from in- 
jecting the Kyrios-title into their own discourse within the 
Gospel, although here with entire propriety they might have 
done so. How confidently, then, may we trust them for not 
making the contemporaries of Jesus speak of Him as “the 
Lord” unless there were sufficient grounds for believing this 
possible and that it actually happened. 

We now turn to the other class of occurrences of the word 
Kyrios in the Gospels, viz., in the form of the vocative of 
address, “Kyrie.” The enquiry into this gives rise to a third 
distinction. It relates to the extent and quality of the reverence 
conveyed by the address, whether it can be explained on the 
basis of simple politeness, or reflects the specifically religious 
recognition in Jesus of some extraordinary dignity, Messianic, 
or extending beyond this into the sphere of Deity. On the 
former supposition the politeness might shade into respect, and 
admit of various colorings according as Jesus was regarded as 
a teacher or friend or in any honorable capacity. Still all this 
might not have overstepped the limits of ordinary human in- 
tercourse; it would not need to be characterized as specifi- 


“THE LORD” 127 


cally religious. On the other hand, if the address to any 
degree partook of the feelings with which later Christians 
invoked the heavenly Christ as “Lord,” then it would have 
been something through the reception of which Jesus would 
have been singled out from all others. “Kyrie” does oc- 
cur in the Gospels as a form of polite address from man 
to man, and that not merely in the setting of parables, where 
it must be remembered that the figure of Jesus stands in 
the background, and consequently no sure indication can be 
found of what was possible between man and man as such, cp. 
Lk. XIV, 21, 22; it occurs also in the account of actual life, as 
from the Jews to Pilate, where, however, the note of respect for 
authority could not be absent, Matt. XX VII, 63; from the 
Greeks to Philip, Jno. XII, 21; from Mary to the supposed 
gardener, Jno. XX, 15. The possibility, therefore, can not be 
denied that it may have on occasion been so meant with ref- 
erence to Jesus. This seems to be further favored by the fact 
that Kyrie stands in the Gospels side by side with Didaskale, 
“Teacher,” and that in certain passages where one Evan- 
gelist has one, the other will have the other. In fact, in the 
Gospel of Mark there is but one instance of the Kyrie-address, 
that by the Syro-Phcenician woman; in all other cases Didas- 
kale is used. In Matthew both, and in Luke three forms of 
address, Kyrie, Didaskale, Epistata, occur. 

It can create no surprise that under these circumstances the 
view has been entertained that Kyrie, when addressed to Jesus, 
had no other meaning than when addressed to others, possibly 
varying in degree of respect conveyed, as it would vary in all 
instances of its use, but in no wise meant to single Him out in 
any unique way from others. In that case, of course, nothing 
could be learned from this usage as to the estimate put upon 
Jesus, either Messianic or otherwise, by those who followed 
Him. It would stand in no connection whatever with the su- 
preme Kyrios-title later given to Jesus by the early Church. 

According to a different view, the Evangelists have in all 
_ these Kyrie-addresses naively carried back into the lifetime of 
Jesus the later Church-practice; they make the people in the 
Gospel-story speak as the Christians of their own time were 


128 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


accustomed to pray. On this view we may learn much from the 
Gospels in regard to what the Kyrie-address implied to the 
mind of the early Church, but we can learn nothing as to what, 
if used at all, it meant to the contemporaries of Jesus. Instead 
of a preformation of the later use it would simply be the later 
use itself anachronistically thrown back into the earlier days. 

Neither of these two views appear plausible. To the second 
we may oppose the simple observation that it is entirely out of 
keeping with what we have so far learned concerning the habits 
of the Evangelists. If they were extremely careful to avoid the 
title “the Lord” in the framework of the narrative, and if, 
moreover, they resisted the temptation to multiply instances of 
it upon the lips of the Gospel personages, then it becomes hard 
to believe that they should have scattered this vocative Kyrie 
broadcast over the surface of their writings, forgetting that it 
could not fail being understood in the most pregnant sense so 
as to convey practically nothing short of the Deity of the 
Savior. 

But the first view, finding in all the instances nothing but an 
expression of politeness, likewise lies open to objections. Kyrie 
does not seem to appear indiscriminately in the speech of all. 
such as might be expected to observe the rules of politeness 
towards Jesus. It is, as a matter of fact, in Matthew and 
Mark, though not consistently in Luke, restricted to just two 
classes of speakers, that of the true disciples, and those appeal- 
ing for supernatural help. Where the approach to Jesus is of a 
purely disinterested nature, or even from an unfriendly quar- 
ter, the formula of address is not Kyrie but something else. 
Instructive on this point are the following cases: according to 
Matt. XXVI, 48, Judas, the traitor, hails Jesus with “Rabbi,” 
in keeping with his not being a true disciple; in Matt. VIII, 
19, 21, the Scribe says to Jesus: “Teacher (Didaskale), I will 
follow thee,” and then the Evangelist continues: “And another 
of the disciples said to him, Lord (Kyrie),” etc. According 
to Matt. XX VI, 22, 25, at the supper the true disciples say: 
“Lord (Kyrie), is it 1?”’, but Judas says: “Teacher (Didas- 
kale), is it I?” 

It is plain, then, that the Gospel writers were guided in this 


“THE LORD” 129 


matter by the principle that in the mouth of certain people 
the word would have been less fitting. Positively this implies 
that to their feeling it expresses something beyond ordinary 
politeness. There was in it an admixture of reverence reli- 
giously colored. This may be inferred from its frequent emer- 
gence in precisely those two connections, that of true disciple- 
ship, and of quest for supernatural help. For in those two 
classes the differentiating feature, as compared with others, 
lies in the affinity of their state of mind to that of religion. 
The question may, however, be raised whether the Evan- 
gelists, in feeling this affinity, still remained conscious of a 
perceptible difference between the state of mind reflected in 
the Gospel happenings and the fulness of recognition of Deity 
and worship carried by the Kyrie of their own time. We have 
already concluded that they did feel such a difference between 
the o Kivpiog of Gospel-history times and that of their own 
time, and felt it to a sufficient degree to make them, as a rule, 
avoid the title in their own narrative. Perhaps they were likely 
to feel less of this in regard to the vocative. The practical 
Christology of the direct intercourse with Jesus would, in filling 
the word with high content, be apt to keep a step in advance of 
the more reflective process. It is possible that they may have 
felt in the Kyrie of the Gospel personages the whole rich mean- 
ing of their own prayer-Kyrie, and have rightly done so. One 
certainly gets the impression from reading the Gospel narra- 
tive, as if Jesus were accosted and treated in them as more 
than a man. On the other hand, the addresses by means of 
Kyrie recorded by the Evangelists do not seem to have given 
them occasion to continue the thread of their narrative with an 
immediately subjoined, “And the Lord Jesus,” etc. True, in 
Luke there occur a few such cases (X, 41; XII, 42; XIX, 8), 
but these occur in the passages where the Ancient Versions 
render the presence of o Kipwg in the original text doubtful. 
Of course, it must remain difficult to determine what pre- 
cisely were the shade and degree of religious reverence present 
in each separate situation. Being in a formative state, the ad- 
dress was not a fixed quantity. It remained flexible and suited 
to various states of mind. In this, as we take it, lies the main 


130 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


difference between it and the later use of the same form. The 
latter had become absolutely fixed, because from the notion of 
Deity implied every element of relativity is excluded. Soon the 
Ho Kyrios and Kyrie were felt as identical in religious import, 
when applied to Christ and to God. Hence the difficulty in 
certain passages to decide which of the two is referred to. 
The Kyrios-name became a sign of transference of the nature 
of Deity to Christ. 

As is true of all imponderables, the determination of how 
much or how little may have been expressed will necessarily 
remain subject to the exegete’s personal judgment. ‘There can 
be no reasonable doubt that in an exclamation like Peter’s, 
Lk. V, 8, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord,” 
the maximum of realisation of the specifically divine import 
of the title has been reached, as is also clearly indicated by the 
accompanying statement, “Simon Peter fell down at Jesus’ 
knees.” The same applies to the words of Thomas, Jno. XX, 
28, “My Lord and my God,” although these, dating from after 
the resurrection, have no convincing force for the earlier time. 
The clearest instance of identity with the later use is found 
in the words of Jesus Himself, Matt. VII, 21: here false dis- 
ciples are represented as in the day of judgment addressing 
Him after this fashion: “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy 
by that name,” etc. A use of the name “Lord” for prophesying 
and doing miracles, such as is here assumed, presupposes its 
well developed, superhuman, religious significance, and is for- 
mally undistinguishable from the use to which it was actually 
put in the later Church. True, the statement is in the future 
tense, containing a prophecy. Yet it remains significant that 
Jesus could in a statement of this kind in such a matter-of-fact 
way refer to a future practice as destined to be in general use. 
In order to find this intelligible we must assume that at the least 
a point of contact for that peculiar use of the term Kyrie must 
have already existed at the time of speaking. On the other - 
hand it is not capable of proof that in each case where a sick 
person addressed Jesus, the title Kyrie, with which this was 
done, rose to the same high level of virtual recognition of his 
Godhead. But a mere formula of politeness it never seems to 


“THE LORD” 131 


have been even in such a case. An instructive comparison may 
be drawn with regard to the flexibility of the title “Son of 
God.” This title also is in some cases proximately a designa- 
tion of Messianic office, and yet on other occasions it bursts 
these limits and becomes expressive of a judgment on the 
superhuman nature of Jesus tantamount to a confession of his 
Deity. Of this more anon. 

The ground taken in the above represents a middle position 
between the theory of absolute equation of the earlier and the 
later Kyrie and that of an absolute difference between the mere 
politeness-usage in the lifetime of Jesus and the worship- 
usage in the later Church. Those who affirm the equation 
with the understanding of its being an anachronism, and as not 
reflecting what was actual or possible during Jesus’ life on 
earth, are to our mind mistaken in both respects. But their 
mistake on the first point is only a partial one, and the possi- 
bility of it is, to our point of view, of great significance and 
value. That the assertion of complete identity can be made 
at all proves how much there must actually be in the Gospels 
that puts the matter far beyond the pale of what is explainable 
from mere politeness. 

The charge of anachronism against the procedure of the 
Evangelists may seem to derive some support from the obser- 
vation that Mark, with one exception, avails himself of 
Didaskale or Rabbi, and that Matthew and Luke and John not 
only by the side of this employ Kyrie, but also put Kyrie in 
passages where Mark has the other, teacher-term. Does not 
this look as if the later Evangelists had confounded the role 
of a Rabbi actually discharged by Jesus with the role of a re- 
cipient of worship subsequently assigned to Him? How can 
the Didaskale of Mark and the Kyrie of Matthew, with its high 
note, be both correct for the same occasion? To put it con- 
cretely: when Peter at the transfiguration says, according to 
Mark: “Teacher (Rabbi), it is good for us to be here,” and 
Matthew introduces the same saying by “Kyrie,” has not 
Matthew unlawfully raised the meaning?» It would be a mis- 
take, however, to explain the use of the teacher-terms by Mark 
on the theory that to this Evangelist Jesus’ work was essen- 


132 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


tially that of a teacher. The entire tenor of his Gospel ex- 
cludes this. There was no inducement for him to lower the 
sense. If one had to accept the alternative, the suspicion of 
incorrectness would fall on Matthew. But perhaps the prob- 
lem may be solved in another way. We must remember that 
in Kyrie and Didaskale we do not deal with the ultimate reali- 
ties of the speech of Jesus and the people, but with translations 
from the Aramaic. In the case of non-parallel passages, where 
the terms differ, one might assume that in each case a different 
original underlay the rendering. That would eliminate the 
divergence to some extent. As to the parallels with variant 
terms, the question must be put whether there did not perhaps 
exist an Aramaic word elastic enough in meaning to suit 
equally well the higher and the lower connotation. 

Now the word Fab, in its usual form Rabbi, seems to meet 
this requirement. In order to perceive this, it will be neces- 
sary first to remove a current misunderstanding in regard to 
the range of meaning of which this word was capable. We 
feel Rabbi as an exclusively scholastic term of respect. If it 
had been this to the same extent at the time of Jesus, then 
Mark’s rendering by Didaskale would have been the only allow- 
able one. As a matter of fact, Rabbi had in Gospel times no 
such restricted meaning. It was used in a great variety of ap- 
plications, in all of which the ideas of obedience and submission 
stood in the foreground to a far greater extent than in the 
average relation between a modern pupil and teacher. Hence 
even in the teacher-use there was given a broader basis for a 
religiously colored meaning than appears on the surface. Be- 
sides this, as we are reminded by Dalman, the word outside of 
such relations had a high reach of meaning. By the Samaritans 
Rab was even used in address to God. Rabban, an intensive 
form of Rab, had as wide a range of application. Both terms, 
then, were “more than ordinarily reverential forms of ad- 
dress,’ whose import would be by no means in every case ex- 
hausted by the Greek Didaskale. ‘Ruler’ would be the ap- 
proximately correct rendering. An analogy is furnished by 
the Latin Magister, which likewise etymologically, and there- 
fore originally, designates superiors of various kinds, but now 


“THE LORD” 133 


has become restricted largely to the sphere of teaching, except 
in such a word as “magistrate,”’ where the original general sense 
still survives. In the same way the etymology of Rab secured 
for the word a great flexibility of meaning. Rab means lit- 
erally “great one.’’ If we may assume that this was still being 
felt in the days of Jesus, then the disciples may well have as- 
sociated with their address of Jesus as “abbr” a deeper rever- 
ence than the average scribal pupil would by means of it ex- 
press for his teacher, or than the non-disciple might put into it 
when approaching Jesus. The uniqueness of even the teacher- 
dignity of Jesus, and the admixture of religious reverence 
evoked by it, are recognizable in the saying, Matt. XXIII, 8: 
“Do not let yourselves be called Rabbi, for One is your 
Teacher.’’ This uniqueness is no less than that of the reli- 
gious fatherhood, when predicated of God, for Jesus adds: 
“Call no man your father on the earth, for One is your Father.” 
It is not excluded, then, that Kyrie in Matthew and Didaskale 
in Mark may be but two different renderings, involving a some- 
what different distribution of emphasis, of a common term 
which warranted either emphasis, and associating with each the 
fundamental ingredient of a peculiar reverence. 

Besides the recurrence upon Rab that upon the word “Mar” 
must be reckoned with as a possibility. Mari, Maran are the 
renderings of the Kyrios-forms in the Syriac versions of the 
Gospels. Mari perhaps comes nearer to the appellative force 
of Kyrios in secular usage. The latter prevailingly seems to 
designate “owner,” not merely “superior,” and in Mari this 
note is most distinct, cp. Foerster, Herr ist Jesus, p. 210. 
Still this does not eliminate Mari from the sphere of polite 
address in which it appears coordinated with Rabbi. As for 
controversial bearing, the main fact to be noticed is that for 
Mari we have in the Gospels no instances of transliteration such 
as we have for Rabbi. (Cp., however, Maranatha, with Paul.) 
But indirectly it is easy to see that a synonymous term used in 
the same connection must have been meant to render another, 
somewhat differently colored, term and that this other term 
was Mari, cp. Matt. X, 24; Jno. XIII, 13. 

Bousset (see below ) has objected to the derivation of Kyrios, 


134 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Kyrie from these Aramaic forms, that the Greek word ought 
to carry in that case a suffix, which the Aramaic never omits. 
That for the Aramaic his observation is correct may be seen 
from “Maranatha,” I Cor. XVI, 22. Paul’s use of this is not, 
of course, absolutely decisive for his having borrowed it from 
the mother-church. And even if it were, this would afford no 
proof of its derivation from pre-resurrection usage. Bousset 
might ‘urge that it arose in the pre-Pauline Hellenistic church, 
say, the church of Antioch, where the large Syrian element 
might account for its origin. As to the loss of the suffix in 
Kyrios, Kyrie, this must have been due to the word’s passing 
over from Aramaic to Greek speech. The retention of a suffix 
in connection with Kyrios or Kyrie, especially with the latter, 
must have been uncongenial to ordinary Greek idiom. The 
absence of the suffix in the Greek usage therefore affords no 
proof for the non-derivation of the term from an Aramaic 
circle. Paul has side by side the absolute “Ho Kyrios” and the 
suffixed forms “our Lord,’ “their Lord.’’ Mary speaks of 
“my Lord,” Jno, XX, 13, and Thomas exclaims: “My Lord 
and my God,” vs. 28. The expansive universalistic force soon 
acquired by Kyrios in the mother-church may also have had 
something to do with the tendency to dispense with the suffix. 

The Lucan “Epistata’”’ seems to be an effort to bring out 
more clearly the authoritative note in the conception. Epistates 
means, ‘‘one who is placed over, a superior.” ‘The “Master” of 
our English Bible after the same manner stresses the attitude of 
reverence. The Authorized Version and the Original Revision 
both have this “Master” for the Greek Didaskale, which may 
have been meant as an approach to the conception of lordship 
inherent in the situation, but probably takes ““Master’’ in the 
sense of “Teacher.” This procedure seems preferable to that 
of the American Revision, which puts “Teacher” for Didaskale 
everywhere, and reserves “Master” for the Lucan “Epistata.’’ 
The rendering “Master” is felicitous on account of its en- 
abling one to feel in the word both elements, that of a pupil’s 
reverence for his unique teacher, and that of a generally reli- 
gious reverence for his Savior. In many a mind the two atti- 
tudes must not merely have come to meet each other, but must 


“THE LORD” 135 


have become so closely interwoven as to be practically insep- 
arable. In the later days when the meaning of Kyrios had been 
more definitely fixed, this was no longer possible with the same 
ease. The lordship in the sense of divine authority and own- 
ership, while by no means excluding it, yet has forced the other 
element into the background and to a certain degree super- 
seded it. 

We conclude, then, that the Kyrie-address of the time of 
Jesus’ walk on earth is a real precursor of the standard designa- 
tion of the Savior from the Apostolic age onwards until the 
present time. It recognizes his Messianic character and, at 
times at least, his divine nature and dignity as reflected in his 
Messiahship. ‘The facts mark one of the lines of internal con- 
nection between the religion cultivated by Jesus in his follow- 
ers and the Christian religion in its normal, historic sense of a 
later day. The position He has now held for so many ages 
is not at variance with, but the legitimate outcome of, the posi- 
tion He held and encouraged people to ascribe to Him in his 
ministry on earth. Nor is this exclusively based on an inves- 
tigation of the word-forms in question; it underlies as a broad 
foundation the general structure of the relation of the dis- 
ciples to Jesus in the record. A large group of phenomena 
revealing to us an altogether unique sense of absolute obliga- 
toriness and appurtenance on the part of his followers, not 
only tolerated by Jesus, but accepted by Him as self-under- 
stood, receives its summing up and illuminating background 
from this Lordship. In this respect it even exceeds in ex- 
planatory force the title Christ, not as though the latter fell 
short of it in content and implications, but because the his- 
torical circumstances prevented the same practical use in its case. 
The absolute things asked of the disciples, the unqualified duty 
to follow, to forsake for Jesus’ sake all other, even the dearest 
earthly, relationships, the rule that whatever is done to others 
shall be measured in its value as what is done to Him, all this 
demands for its ultimate ground his unique lordship as recog- 
nized even at that time. 

The presence of one stable element from beginning to end 
marks the continuity in the history of the conception. This is 


136 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the element of authoritative ownership. Whether in the Gos- 
pels we may add to this the idea of ownership and authority 
resting on antecedently acquired rights, as undoubtedly we must 
in Paul, is not clear. The words Kyrios and Despotes are both 
applied to Jesus in his relation to his followers, the latter indi- 
rectly in the parables. Usually in common Greek usage the 
difference between the two is found in this that Despotes puts 
the relation on the ground of pure sovereignty of fact, not 
further to be enquired into as to its reason. Of the mystical 
element which enters into the nature of communion with Jesus, 
whatever is taught in the Gospels has no special association 
with the kyriotes. This does not to the same extent hold true 
of Paul. The Apostle, to be sure, likewise calls Jesus Kyrios, 
where submission, ownership, obligation, come under consid- 
eration. II Cor. III, 17, however, shows that Kyrios could 
enter into the closest union with the Spirit-aspect of the Chris- 
tian life. But on the whole, where the redemptive basis of the 
believer’s status and his mystical bond with the Savior are 
spoken of, Paul by preference seems to employ Jesus Christ or 
Christ Jesus, to which then again “our Lord” easily attaches 
itself, indicating that the servantship and appurtenance are 
rooted in what Jesus has done and purchased for the believer.° 

Since the year 1913 a lively and deep-going controversy has 
been waged in theological circles concerning the origin and rdle 
played in the development of early Christianity by the Kyrios- 
title. Bousset set the ball rolling with his epoch-making book, 
Kyrios Christos, 1913, 2d. ed. 1921. For the main problem of 
his construction he had had precursors in Heitmiiller and 
Bohlig, the titles of whose discussions are given in the list of 
literature subjoined beneath.* Bousset’s view on Kyrios is 

5 Foerster, Herr ist Jesus, pp. 179-101. 

6 About a decade earlier, and outside of the controversy, stands: Sven 
Herner, Die Anwendung des Wortes Kyrios im N. T., 1903; within it stand 
the following: Heitmiiller, Zum Problem Jesus und Paulus, 1912. Z. f. d. 

T. W., 1912; also: Jesus und Paulus, Z. f. Th. u. K., 1915; Bohlig, Die 
Geisteskultur von Tarsus, F. z. Rel. u. Lit. des A. u. N. T., 1913; Bousset, 
Der Gebrauch des Kyrios-Titels als Kriterium fur die Quellenscheidung in 
der ersten Halfte der Apostelgeschichte, Z. {. d. N. T. W., 1914; Wernle, 
Jesus und Paulus, Antithesen zu Bousset’'s Kyrios Christos, Z. £. Th. u. 


K., 1915; Kohler, Der Kyrios Christos in den Evangelien und der Spruch 
vom Herrn-Herrn-Sagen, Th. St. u. Kr., 1915; Althaus, Unser Herr Jésus, 


“THE LORD” 137 


laid by him at the basis of a sweeping revision of the historical 
development of early Christianity. In view of its largeness 
of conception and thoroughness of treatment admiration can 
not be withheld from this work. Despite this, however, it has 
not proven able to withstand the attack of criticism launched 
against it from the liberals themselves. Bousset’s three main 
propositions are as follows: a) Jesus never bore the title Kyrios 
either during his lifetime or in the circle of the Jerusalem 
mother-church; b) in the pre-Pauline Hellenistic church, par- 
ticularly at Antioch in Syria, Kyrios was the prevalent designa- 
tion He received as the object of the Christian cult, Kyrios 
being the common title of the cult-god in the pagan religions of 
that region and elsewhere at that time; c) Paul has adopted 
this name into his Christology, but not without greatly modi- 
fying its significance under the influence of his pneuma-con- 
cept; to him Kyrios is the equivalent of Pneuma. The cult- 
limit within which the title was confined thus became en- 
larged; through its equation with Pneuma, Kyrios became 
incorporated into the dualistic-pessimistic-supernaturalistic, in 
part magical, scheme of the Apostle’s theology. The chief 
motive underlying this whole construction is not difficult to 
discern, Although proceeding with apparent objectivity, Bous- 
set does not dissemble that his purpose is to sever the Pauline 
form of Christianity with its deification and worship of Jesus, 
wherein according to him lies the source of the traditional or- 
thodoxy of the Church, from the historical reality of the life 
of Jesus, in which the latter figured to Himself and his fol- 
lowers as a mere man, Even from the Christological vocabu- 
lary of the mother-church he keeps the Kyrios-designation ab- 
sent. Here Jesus’ specific title was “Son-of-Man.” This, 
however, is not gathered from the Book of Acts, but from the 


N. K. Z., 1915; Bousset, Nachtrage und Auseinandersetzungen zum Kyrios 
Christos, F. z. Rel. u. Lit. des A. u. N. T., 1916; Vos, The.Kyrios-Christos 
Controversy, Princeton Theological Review, 1915 and 1917; Morgan, The 
Religion and Theology of St. Paul, 1917; Andrews, The Title Kyrios as 
Applied to Jesus, Exp. VIIIth Series, vol. XV; Scott, Dominus Noster; A 
Study in the Progressive Recognition of Jesus Christ, our Lord, 1918; 
Junker, Jesus der Herr, Zeit- u. Streitfragen des Glaubens, vol. XIV, 1920; 
Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, 1921; Foerster, Herr ist Jesus, N. 
T. Forsch, herausgegeben von Dr. Otto Schmitz, 2te Reihe, I, 1924. 


138 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Gospels, its occurrence there being taken as indicative of what 
the circles in which the Gospel-tradition originated were ac- 
customed to. 

The principal points to be criticized in this hypothesis are: 
1) its identification of the Kyrios-title with cult-practice, even 
in the pagan religions of Syria and Egypt or the Hermetic circle 
or Gnosticism, is not borne out by the evidence. Though in 
much use Kyrios had a far wider range in all these environ- 
ments than that of a cult-deity. It is of importance to notice 
this, because the act of borrowing the title on the part of Hel- 
lenistic Christians becomes through it harder to explain than if 
it had been a simple matter of cult-address. As a prevalent 
embodiment of paganism in general the reference to Jesus as 
Kyrios would have been more offensive to the Christian con- 
sciousness than in the other case of its narrower significance. 
2) The character of this middle stage between the mother 
Church and Pauline Christianity remains too much a mere pos- 
tulate and too indefinite to make such weighty use of it in so 
momentous a construction. 3) Bousset fails to do justice to 
the facts as recorded in the Acts and in the Gospels. Passages 
running athwart his view he is overready to suspect on the 
flimsiest critical grounds. Practically all of the material sur- 
veyed above as evidence of a germinating Kyrios-usage in 
Gospel-ministry times, and of a further-developed usage in the 
mother-church after the resurrection, is ruled out by his method. 
Owing to this he has an inadequate appreciation of the actual 
content of the Kyrios-doulos relationship as revealed to us in 
the sources. 4) Though quite willing to use the Gospels as 
means of reconstructing the mother-church belief, Bousset neg- 
lects what they have to teach us as bearing upon the con- 
sciousness of Jesus Himself. As shown above, the background 
of the parables of our Lord with their Kyrios and oikodespotes, 
and that too in a specifically eschatological connection, assum- 
ing the return of the speaker in the quality of Kyrios, can not 
be so simply set aside. If any confidence is to be placed in the 
general tenor of the Gospels, the disciples’ attitude towards 
Jesus must have gone far beyond pupil-respect for a teacher. 
5) On the other hand Bousset builds too much on the inform- 


“THE LORD” 139 


ing power of the Gospels, when he considers them able to 
teach us by indirection what was the prevailing Christological 
name in use in the early Jerusalem church. ‘That it should 
have been “Son-of-Man” the Gospels not only could not be ex- 
pected to teach, but they positively exclude it through their con- 
fining all the Son-of-Man references to the discourse of Jesus 
Himself. Had the Christian mind out of which the Gospels 
were born been so accustomed to naming Jesus “the Son of 
Man,” then this would inevitably have been put into the mouth 
of others in the Gospels in the form of statements about Jesus. 
6) As regards Paul, Bousset makes too much of the equation 
Kyrios-Pneuma. This represents, to be sure, a real and impor- 
tant strand in the Pauline teaching, but the attempt to make of 
it the main thing betrays the desire for unduly separating the 
primitive Christian belief from the Pauline faith so as to create 
need for an intermediate stage. 7) The chief cause of Bous- 
set’s inadequate treatment of the Gospels and his summary dis- 
missal of their evidence in the matter at issue lies in his atti- 
tude towards the Messianic consciousness. While not deny- 
ing its historicity outright, he yet regards it to have been for 
Jesus a mere matter of form. One believing this could hardly 
be expected to regard the Messianic consciousness as the start- 
ing-point from which so profound a relationship as that con- 
noted by the Kyrios-doulos formula would be likely to develop. 
One bearing the Messianic consciousness as a burden, as Bous- 
set assumes to have been the case with Jesus, would not be apt 
to cultivate a sense for his own lordship in the disciples. 


CHAPTER X 
THE SON OF GOD 


WirH the title Son of God we find opening up to us a new 
perspective from which to view the Messiahship. The former 
titles describe in the main the manward relations of the office. 
In regard to this new title the direction of our vision is re- 
versed: we consider here in the first place what God is with 
reference to the Messiah, and the latter with reference to God. 
Through this change in point of view the subject becomes 
richer, but it also becomes more difficult and mysterious. Here, 
furthermore, lie the lines of revelation that connect the soteric 
function and work of Jesus with the great transcendental veri- 
ties of our faith concerning Him. We here see the Messiah- 
ship, though a thing in time, yet solidly resting on the eternal 
things of the Godhead. The profoundest Christology of the 
New Testament here shows its ultimate roots. And even on 
the human relationships reviewed in the preceding there falls 
from this source much clarifying light. 

The sense of the title Son of God has by no means been an 
inflexible or unchanging one throughout the ages of its Scrip- 
tural usage. Various meanings have been and can be dis- 
tinguished. Without prejudging anything, and simply to in- 
troduce clearness into the biblico-theological discussion, it 
seems best to give a brief definition of the several aspects of 
the meaning around which in modern times the debate has re- 
volved. It will be in place afterwards, when the exegetical 
enquiry has been completed, to state by way of summing up 
what biblical evidence there is for each of these uses, and how 
in their import and genesis they hang together. The name has 
been used in four senses: 1) the purely moral and religious 
sense, in which it may be translated by “child of God”; 2) the 
official or Messianic sense in which it is not a description of 


nature but of office; as the heir and representative of God the 
140 


THE SON OF GOD 141 


Messiah could bear the title of “Son of God” without explicit 
reflection upon his nature; in this official sense God declared 
to David that not only his Messianic descendant but also the 
earlier kings of his line would be sons to Him; 3) the nativistic 
sense; the origin of the Messiah’s human nature is ascribed to 
the direct, supernatural paternity of God; thus in Lk. I most 
explicitly, but also in Matt. I and Jno. I, 13; 4) The trini- 
tarian sense which affirms the sonship as existing in eternity 
before the world was, as something not only antedating but ab- 
solutely transcending his human life and his official calling as 
Messiah.* 

These then are the terms and conceptions that will enter into 
our discussion. By practically unanimous consent all four of 
these occur in connection with Jesus, if the New Testament 
teaching be taken as a whole. But we are discussing the con- 
sciousness of Jesus Himself, and can therefore deal only with 
those aspects of the divine sonship to which the Lord has 
made reference or on which in his teaching He has dwelt. 
That might leave out of account the nativistic sonship named 
above in the third place, disclosure of which we have only from 
the inspired writers of the Gospels. Yet, since this is most 
intimately interwoven with and adjusted to other relationships, 
we propose to include it in our survey of the facts. Of the 
three other aspects the presence, not only in the New Testa- 
ment, but in the very words of Jesus, can be shown. Still this 
is, when specifically related to the mind of Jesus, by no means 
a matter of agreement among all parties. The old “liberal 
tradition,” so long as it reckoned with the Messianic conscious- 
ness as a factor in the life of Jesus, ruled out the trinitarian 
application and the nativistic one from Jesus’ mind, and re- 
tained historical belief only in the official-Messianic and the 
ethico-religious sense. And even these two have been reduced 
to one, since the wave of scepticism in regard to all Messianic 


1 Because of the role played in it by the Spirit the Nativistic Sonship is 
sometimes called the “pneumatic” sonship, e.g., by Harnack, Dogmenge- 
schichte,> I, 181, but it may be remarked against this that the Spirit 
equally plays a part in the official Messianic sonship, according to the ac- 
count of the baptism of Jesus; cp. Kattenbusch, Das Apostolische Symbol, 


Il, 577. 


142 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


claims of Jesus has swept the official-Messianic interpretation 
of the term by Jesus Himself away. Nothing would remain 
then except this one belief that He called Himself a “child of 
God,” to be sure in a somewhat heightened sense, but not on 
that account ina sense principially different from that in which 
He desired his disciples to apply the name and its implications 
to themselves. 

In entering upon the scrutiny of the material it might seem 
that for the sake of cogency we ought to confine ourselves 
strictly to deliverances and avowals of Jesus Himself, because 
these alone cast light on the consciousness of Messiahship 
within Him. A moment’s reflection, however, will show that 
this is impossible, because considerable force resides in what 
Jesus lets Himself be told without gainsaying, or allows people 
to tell about Him in his hearing, or even on occasion solicits by 
way of avowal or confession from others. This ought to throw 
weight into the scales, though, of course, it does not possess 
the full importance of his direct declarations. Further, a dis- 
tinction will be made between the Synoptical and the Johannine 
evidence, not because we consider the latter as unreliable from 
an historical point of view, but because in John a certain ter- 
minology appears, peculiar to this Gospel, and yet to some ex- 
tent deepening the other designations common to the four 
Gospels. 

We begin with a discussion of the instances in which, ac- 
cording to the Synoptical record, Jesus represents Himself as 
the Son of God. The passages are: Matt. XI, 27 (Lk. X, 22); 
XVII, 24-27; XXI, 37, 38; (Mk. XII, 6; Lk. XX, 13) ; XXII, 
AI-46 (Mk. XII, 35-37; Lk. XX, 41-44); XXIV, 36; (Mk. 
XIII, 32); XXVIII, 19. Besides these there are fifteen pas- 
sages in Matthew, where Jesus speaks of God as “my Father” 
(XD 27 XK) 32,335 KI, 275 XT copy 5 o5 Oe 
AV ITT 10,574, 10,35 XX, 235 ARV) as ROR ogee 
In Luke’s Gospel there are three instances of this (II, 49; 
XXII, 29; XXIV, 49). In Mark none occur. 

Matt. XI, 27 (Lk. X, 22) is by far the most important seat 
of the testimony Jesus bears to his sonship. In fact, it marks 
the culminating point of our Lord’s self-disclosure in the 


THE SON OF GOD 143 


Synoptics. The Christology is so high as to call forth the com- 
ment that the words have a pronounced Johannine sound.’ 
Fortunately it is not found in Matthew alone, but also in Luke, 
so that advocates of the two-document hypothesis can not deny 
its appurtenance to the Logia-source. Here then we have 
something in the supposedly most ancient source of the sayings 
of Jesus higher than which there is no statement in the Fourth 
Gospel. None the less, perhaps it would be better to say by 
very reason of this, attempts have been made to deny the au- 
thenticity of the words as a statement of Jesus, particularly on 
account of their containing reminiscences of Isaiah, Jeremiah 
and Sirach, and further on account of close resemblance to 
Paul’s language in First Corinthians. Pfleiderer and Brandt | 
contend that the passage is a later production on the basis of, 
the Pauline theology, clothing itself in the language of the Old 
Testament writings named. The prophetic references are 
POSE elena Ow LLL ras eM tie aie per 
Vinwo, wan 2)25\" In Paul’ the verses referred) to..are 
Ditteee PO 2, 22-207 ML. T-O, 76-10, 145. Lis Pay ie ae 
there are reminiscences of the passages cited from Isaiah 
and Jeremiah may readily be granted. It is quite in accord 
with the saturation of our Lord’s mind with the substance 
and language of the Old Testament. Moreover it is favored 
by the observation that direct, conscious quotations from 
that source are particularly in evidence in the supreme crises 
of our Lord’s career, such as the temptation and the cru- 
cifixion. If nota crisis, certainly a high point in his Messianic 
career, was reached when He uttered the words in view; cp. 
vs. 21 in Luke: “He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said.” 
That the statements “I will give you rest’? and “Ye shall find 
rest for your souls,” (vss. 26 and 29 in Matthew) are verbally 
derived from Jeremiah, admits of no doubt. Dependence of 
Matt. vs. 28 on Isa. LV, 1 is also more than plausible. As for 
the points of resemblance to I Cor. I and IJ, it is plain that no 
priority can be claimed for the Pauline statements as over 


2 Harnack, Spriiche und Reden Jesu, pp. 210, 211. It is safe to say, if 
the contents of the Gospels had come down to us in the form of a Gospel 
harmony, and the separate Gospels were lost, few critics would have hesi- 
tated to assign Matt. XI, 25-30-Lk. X, 21, 22 to the Johannine material. 


144 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


against the words of Jesus. Nor is it on the contrary neces- 
sary to think of Paul as here quoting Jesus or writing from 
unconscious reminiscence of his discourse... The similarities 
are such as might be naturally expected from the pursuit of an 
identical trend of thought (the predestinarian principle as 
favoring the simple-minded and ignorant) by two independent 
minds.° 
The alleged more thorough-going correspondence to Sirach 
requires a somewhat fuller discussion.. The section of Sirach to 
which the utterance is traced consists of LI, 1-30. The identity 
of thought and structure is found in.the following points: a) 
the ascription of praise to God at the beginning as in both Mat- 
thew and. Luke; b) the praise of Wisdom from vs. 13 onward 
is supposed to correspond to Jesus’ exalted self-description in 
the middle of the Gospel-passages; c) the invitation of the ig- 
norant ones, Sir..23-30, is compared to that found in Matthew, 
vss. 28-30 (absent from Luke). There can be, of course, no 
a priort objection to reminiscence, or even structural reproduc- 
tion, in the mind of Jesus from a book like Sirach. The ques- 
tion is, whether the similarities pointed out are such as to ren- 
des a conclusion to that effect unavoidable. A brief review of 
the facts will leave this in serious doubt. Especially will doubt 
seem in place, if instead of thinking of an influence through 
memory upon the mind of. Jesus, we should assume that the 
whole passage as found in the Gospel i is a later composition with 
which Jesus had nothing to do, since after his death it was pro- 
duced by some unknown contributor or manipulator of the 
Gospel-tradition. For in that case the freedom exercised in 
the construction of it could not help making the similarities 
seem far greater than they actually are. The introductions to 
the two passages have no more in common than the general 
note of praise, and the invocation of God by the titles “Lord” 
and ‘‘Father.’’ These features are by no means rare in the Old : 
Testament, so that the reminiscence need not be a reminiscence 
on the part of one author from the other, but both may. ‘well 
have drawn from that common source, which would leave thé 


3QOn the relation between our passage and Paul, cp. Harnack, Spritche 
U. Keden, p. 210, note I. 


We nh ig 


THE SON OF GOD 145 


attribution of the discourse to Jesus above question from a 
literary point of view. Moreover Sirach praises God as 
“King, a form of address not occurring in the Gospel-passage. 
Jesus speaks of the “Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” But 
weaker even than in this opening piece stands the plea for 
dependence as regards the middle section, the main body in 
each case of the discourse. Here Wisdom and Jesus are sup- 
posed to speak closely corresponding words. That Jesus could 
be and was actually identified with the O. T. Wisdom is in- 
ferred from Matt. XXIII, 34-36 (Lk. XI, 49-51).* But it is 
fatal to the argument built on this that Jesus in his mono- 
logue makés no reference whatever to Wisdom; the concept 
around which his thought revolves is that of revelation, knowl- 
edge, fatherhood, sonship in relation to knowledge. Particu- 
larly the core of Jesus’ utterance, vs. 27 in Matthew, vs. 22 in 
Luke, remains entirely untouched by the thought in Sirach. 
Finally as concerns the invitation which, formally considered, is 
the same in both contexts (Sirach and Matthew), this is a form 
of appeal not uncommon in the Wisdom literature of the Old 
Testament. The most striking words of the invitation are de- 
rived, as above remarked, not from Sirach but from Jeremiah. 
Much, far too much, has been made of the rhythmical struc- 
ture of the discourse of Jesus at this particular point, as though 
this in itself furnished an indicium of derivation, on the ground 
of its not being characteristic of the Gospel-discourse attributed 
to Jesus elsewhere. It has been found resembling the style of 
psalmody and in this feature additional corroboration has been 
discovered for the piece as an imitation of the Sirachian Psalm. 
But both Evangelists derive what there is of this character 


4 The assumption that a later writer might here have attributed to Jesus 
the words of Sirach’s “Wisdom” rests on the basis of Luke XI, 49-51, 
putting into the mouth of “Wisdom” words uttered by Jesus according to 
Maft. XXIII, 34-36. It is not necessary to find in the passage of Luke 
the identification of the hypostatical “Wisdom” with Jesus on the part of 
the Evangelist. Perhaps he merely represents Jesus as quoting the words 
of “Wisdom” (not Sirach). Whether in that case “Wisdom” refers to 
some lost book, or stands for divine providence need not be decided here; 
cp. Plummer’s Commentary ad locum. In no wise does the passage furnish 
a strict analogy for the assumed borrowing by an early Christian of an 
extended discourse from Sirach and putting it into the mouth of Jesus, 
simply because the latter could be identified with “Wisdom,” 


146 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


from the mood of exaltation in which the utterance was made 
by Jesus, and explain this mood from a definite historical situa- 
tion in which the Speaker found Himself, Matthew vs. 25; 
Lk. vs. 21. And apart from this, our Lord’s discourse in the 
Gospel not seldom rises to the plane of semi-poetical rhythmus ; 
especially the Sermon on the Mount and the eschatological sec- 
tions offer examples of this. Finally, as Harnack has pointedly 
observed, in a freely composed Christian poem the phrase “these 
things” (Matt. vs. 25; Lk. vs. 21), so closely connecting the 
passage with the preceding context, would have scarcely been 
introduced.° 

After these preliminary remarks on the question of deriva- 
tion we may now proceed to examine the content of the saying 
of Jesus, more particularly of that part which is of immediate 
importance for our purpose, its Christological center. While 
Matthew introduces the deliverance in a somewhat indefinite 
way, placing it after the rebuke of the unbelieving cities, Luke 
brings the words in connection with the return of the “seventy” 
from their mission. But with Matthew likewise they appear 
as having been spoken in view of the twofold outcome of the 
preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom, rejected by the wise 
and understanding, but embraced by the ignorant plain people. 
Jesus rejoices about this in the Spirit, and thanks the Father, 
Lord of heaven and earth, for having in his sovereignty so 
ordained it. From the one class it has been hidden, to the 
other class revealed. The object of this hiding and revealing 
is “these things,’ a phrase receiving its reference from the 
situation out of which Jesus speaks. It relates to the message 
preached by Jesus or the disciples. This reference is required 
not only by the nature of the verb “revealed,” but likewise by 
the contrast drawn between the wise and understanding on the 
one hand and the babes on the other, a contrast lying within 
the sphere of knowledge.® Vs. 27 in Matthew (Lk. vs. 22) 
differs from the preceding in so far only as the matter is here 
put on a personal basis. Jesus’ joy and thanksgiving do not 
relate to something taking place outside of Himself, in regard 


5 Spriiche u. Reden Jesu, p. 206. 
6 Idem, p. 207 and note 3. 


THE SON OF GOD 147 


to which He, although rejoicing in it, would after all be a 
mere spectator. Jesus thanks God because his own Person is 
the pivot, the center, of the whole transaction. The glory of 
the gospel dispensation with its sovereignty and wisdom is 
focused in his own Person: “All things were delivered unto 
me by my Father.” The “all things” here takes up the “these 
things” of vs. 25, and this determines the sense of “‘were de- 
livered.” There is no reference here to the thought of Matt. 
XXVIII, 18: To me has been given all authority in heaven 
and on earth.’ The compound verb, mapeddSy instead of 
éd09y tells against this. On the other hand “delivered” must 
not be understood of impartation of knowledge to Jesus in 
the technical sense of “paradosis,”’ “tradition,’ as Harnack 
would understand it. Its object is truth, but the act is not 
an act of information; it is an act of entrusting, committing 
the truth for communication to others. “Has been tradited’’ in 
the technical sense of ‘‘has been handed down’ would, as be- 
tween God and Christ, be without analogy in the New Testa- 
ment.® Moreover, the verb understood of tradition would re- 
quire the preposition mapé or and instead of umd, as the 
text reads.° The preposition mapa in the compound verb 
expresses that God has devolved upon Jesus what is his 
own special prerogative: the task to reveal the whole truth in 
all its wide extent. It is to be noticed further that Jesus says 
not “by God,” but “by my Father.” In vss. 25, 26 the term 
“Father” was occasioned by the form of prayer there assumed 
by the discourse, but here in vs. 27 its occurrence requires spe- 
cial explanation: it serves to account for the absoluteness and 
comprehensiveness of the task of revelation entrusted to Jesus. 
Because God is his Father and He the Son of God, such a de- 
livering of all things in the realm of revelation was possible. 
Here, therefore, the Messiahship on its revealing side (“all 
things were delivered’’) is put on the basis of sonship (“by my 
Father’). The two clauses now following: “No one knows 


7 Liitgert in Beitr. z. Ford. Christlicher Theologic, III, would interpret 
our passage of delegation of world-rule, as in Jno. IIT, 35; XIII, 3. Simi- 
larly Schumacher, Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu bet Matt. 11, 27; Freiburger 
Theol. Stud. 1912, p. 166 ff. } 

8 Pfleiderer observes this as quoted by Harnack, op. cit., p. 207, note 3. 

9“ Aré” occurs in Cod. D. For rapa no witness exists. 


148 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the Son but the Father, nor does any one know the Father but 
the Son, and he to whomsoever he (the Son) willeth to re- 
veal him (the Father), state explicitly what was by implica- 
tion contained in the preceding: the Messiahship is of such a 
nature, even so far as its revealing function is concerned, that 
it demands for its prerequisite a wholly unique relationship to 
God. . That the Son possesses this is guaranteed by his name 
and dignity as Son. The intimacy is such that God alone can 
know Him, and that He alone can know God. The dignity 
lies far above the sphere of ordinary human acquaintance; it 
carries with itself a unique mutual cognition between Jesus 
and God. God knows Him and He knows God with an ex- 
clusive knowledge. Here also, of course, the correlative terms 
“Father” and ‘‘Son” are significant: our Lord says not: No 
one but God knows me, and no one but I know God. What 
He says is: No one but the Father knows the Son, no one but 
the Son knows the Father. These terms are used, because 
they add to the statement of the fact the explanation of the 
fact: Jesus has this exclusive knowledge of God in virtue of 
his being the Son; God has this exclusive knowledge of Jesus 
in virtue of his being the Father. It is a knowledge such as 
only a father can possess of ason, only a son of a father. Fur- 
ther the present tense of the verb should be noted: the refer- 
ence is not to something that has begun to exist at a point in 
the past; at least there is no reflection upon this; it refers to 
something that perpetually exists; it is not a knowledge ac- 
quired by a learning to know, but a knowledge possessed in 
virtue of a state of being. Also the éxi forming the pre- 
fix to the verb adds to the meaning: it expresses thorough, 
penetrating, intensive knowledge. Luke, who has the simple 
instead of the compound verb, conveys the same idea through 
adding an object-clause of peculiar import: ‘““No one knows 
who the Son is save the Father, nor who the Father is save 
the Son.” That no acquired but essential knowledge is meant 
follows also from the correlation of the two clauses: the knowl- 
edge God has of Jesus can not be acquired knowledge, conse- 
quently the knowledge Jesus has of God can not be acquired 
knowledge either, for these two are put entirely on a line. In 


THE SON OF GOD 149 


other words, if the one is different from human knowledge, 
then the other must be so likewise. It would be incongruous 
to put God and a creature over. against each other in this fash- 
ion, so as to say or to imply that the exclusive knowledge. God 
has of the creature is like unto the exclusive knowledge the 
creature has of God. It is evident that the Speaker here moves 
within the sphere of Deity. The language is so much like 
that used in the Fourth Gospel that it must want to be under- 
stood in the same sense. The similarity to such a saying as 
Jno. X, 15 does not merely lie in the words, nor in the theo- 
logical construction of the relation between Father and Son 
alone, but chiefly in the reduction of all saving knowledge to a 
knowledge concerning the Son. Soteriology is here, as in John, 
Christology. The interpretation given also explains why the 
two statements are made in that peculiar sequence. In the ab- 
stract, and on the surface, one might expect them to come in 
the opposite order. After having said: “All things were de- 
livered to me of my Father,” it would seem, by way of add- 
ing the reason for this, the natural, almost inevitable, thing 
for Jesus to continue: ‘“No one knows the Father but the Son,” 
and, as a matter of fact, such is, as a rule, the only element 
seized upon for practical use in the quotation of the passage. 
Nevertheless this misses a very important point. The twofold 
statement stands in the closest connection with the twofold 
principle, likewise stated, that the Father has to reveal:-the Son 
and the Son the Father. And, since of these two necessities 
the revelation of the Son by the Father had already been af- 
firmed in the preceding, viz., in vs. 25: “hast revealed these 
things,’ the clause about the Father knowing the Son comes 
first, then the other. For the same reason the explanation of 
the Son’s revealing the Father is explicitly added here, this 
not having been spoken of in the earlier part of the discourse. 
The construction thus becomes chiastic, revelation of the Son 
by the Father plus knowledge of the Son by the Father com- 
ing to stand in inverse order over against knowledge of the 
Father by the Son and revelation of the Father by the Son. The 
principle exhibited is that of reciprocity and exact correspond- 
ence in the knowledge possessed, and the revealing function 


150 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


exercised on both sides. Thus, in order to perceive the full 
import of the momentous declaration, one might rearrange 
and paraphrase it as follows: “No one knows the Son but the 
Father, and whosoever the Father willeth to reveal him unto, 
and in like manner no one knows the Father but the Son, and 
whosoever the Son willeth to reveal him unto.” Still even 
this does not exhaust the parallelism intended to be brought 
out, until by the side of the correspondence in sufficient knowl- 
edge, the additional correspondence in the exercise of absolute 
sovereignty is taken into account. ‘To the sovereignty in the 
work of revealing the Son (vs. 25: “for so it has been well- 
pleasing in thy sight”) there answers the sovereignty exhibited 
by the Son in revealing the Father (“‘to whomsoever he, i.e., 
the Son, willeth to reveal’). There is not only the same ex- 
clusive knowledge on both sides, nor merely the same unique 
ability of revelation, but likewise the same sovereignty in 
dispensing what is to be revealed and to whom, so that the 
mystery is withheld from the wise and understanding and re- 
vealed unto babes by the identical mode of procedure on 
the part of the Father and the Son. Finally it will be per- 
ceived at a glance that the high interpretation placed upon vs. 
27 is borne out by the terms used in vss. 28-30. The unique 
invitation: “Hither to me all,” etc., for which analogies can 
be found only in the Old Testament in certain words of Jehovah 
Himself, notably in Isa. XLV, 22: “Look unto me and be 
saved all ye ends of the earth,” requires as a prerequisite the 
unique relation to God affirmed of Himself by Jesus. Luke, 
while not giving these words, nevertheless adds to the Christo- 
logical declaration a similar statement of soteric import 
(brought by Matthew in another connection, XIII, 16, 17): 
“And to the disciples he said privately: Blessed be the eyes 
which see what ye see, for I say unto you, that many prophets 
and kings desired to see the things which ye see, and saw them | 
not, and to hear the things which ye hear and heard them 
NOG enviese eA. 

It scarcely needs pointing out that in this great deliverance 
Messiahship and sonship are distinguished. The Messiahship 
appears in the reception on Jesus’ part of the commission to 


THE SON OF GOD 151 


reveal all things. But the sonship underlies this as the only 
basis on which it could happen, and on which it can be under- 
stood. And the sonship of this Messianic Person altogether 
transcends his historic appearance. It exists, as it were, in a 
timeless present, where He knows the Father and the Father 
knows Him. Just as little as “the Father” and “Lord of 
heaven and earth” are titles derived from the soteric situation, 
just as little is “the Son” a designation of Jesus ultimately 
derived from that. He is called “the Son” not simply because 
of his being the Messiah, but because his Messiahship is de- 
termined by an anterior sonship lying back of it. 

Because of its importance we can not dismiss the passage 
without giving some space to the controversy waged about its 
original text. This controversy has scarcely ever been in- 
spired by purely scientific considerations of textual criticism. 
Nearly always some theological interest has lain in the back- 
ground. Two stages, chronologically far apart, are to be 
distinguished in the course of this controversy. The first 
belongs to the age when the young Christian Church found 
herself involved in a desperate struggle with Gnosticism. 
The passage was used by certain Gnostics to prove that Jesus 
Himself had been a Gnostic, inasmuch as He emphatically 
declared that previously to Himself no one knew the Father, 
i.e., the true Father-God in distinction from Jehovah, the 
Demiurg, the Creator-God, who alone was known during 
the Old Testament period. The method by which the or- 
thodox Fathers encountered this contention not seldom con- 
sisted in showing that in the Old Testament itself such a non- 
knowledge of God is laid to the charge of Israel in its relation 
to Jehovah, and that consequently “the unknown God” is not 
different from, but identical with, Jehovah. The modern criti- 
cal handling of the text is of a widely different kind. It stands 
in the service of the “liberal” interpretation of Jesus, and aims 
at removing the text from the arsenal of the Church orthodoxy 
in the latter’s contention for the Deity of Christ, who in its 
ordinary form seems to profess in it his equality with God in 
the point of mutual knowledge between God and Himself and 
of coequal exercise of sovereignty with the Father. By its 


152 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


construction and exegesis of the words the liberal theology 
made Jesus’ consciousness about Himself identical with its 
own view in regard to Him, as to all intents not God but a 
man who, though unique as compared with others in his knowl- 
edge of God, yet had to acquire this knowledge after a truly 
empirical fashion, in a historical process. As the Gnostics had 
by the use of it made Jesus one of their company, so the pres- 
ent-day “liberal” theology by the use of it makes Jesus align 
Himself with its own view about his Person and nature. The 
purpose of the new modern exegesis thus is, of course, a to- 
tally different one from that pursued by the Gnostic heretics. 
The latter wanted to make Jesus repudiate the Old Testament, 
the former want to make Him classify Himself as man and 
not God. And yet it is a curious fact that two such diverse 
purposes agree in staking their contention chiefly on the read- 
ing and interpretation of a single word in the passage. This 
word is the verb in the clause, No one yuvaoxer (present 
tense) or éyvq@ (aorist tense) the Father but the Son. The 
aorist, taken as a true past tense, enabled the Gnostic to 
throw the import of the declaration back into the past period 
of the entire Old Testament. But it likewise enables the “lib- 
eral’ to conceive of the cognition of Jesus with reference to 
God in such a purely temporal way, as in such a sense an act 
of acquisition that it 1pso facto rules out his Deity. It should 
be remembered, however, that the interpretation and critical 
reading of this one verb are not the only factors entering into 
the controversy, either of old or now. Besides this, the genu- 
ineness of the one of the two correlative clauses of which the 
passage consists, or where the genuineness is recognized, its 
sequence with regard to the other clause has played quite a 
role in the doctrinal appraisal of the statement. Did Jesus 
parallel the clause about the exclusiveness of the Son’s knowl- 
edge of the Father by a perfectly similar clause ascribing to 
the Father the same kind of exclusive knowledge of the Son? 
Or, should perhaps the “Father-knowing-the-Son clause” be 
entirely thrown out of the text, as something purposely in- 
jected of old to formulate and buttress the very Church-dogma 
on behalf of which it is now appealed to by the orthodox? 


THE SON OF GOD 153 


Or, if there actually stood two clauses from the beginning, 
which of the two stood first, that in which the Father is the 
subject, or that in which the Son is the subject? These things 
have already been dealt with in the positive exegesis. given 
above to determine the doctrinal bearing of the passage, but 
it is necessary to remember them here as the critical aspect of 
the matter comes under consideration. 

The modern critical debate about the passage not only fur- 
nishes a sort of parallel to the patristic one, but it was actually 
stirred up and kept up by certain textual phenomena which the 
latter is supposed to have brought to light. So these ancient 
Gnostics become at the present day direct or indirect textual 
witnesses for what the “liberal” theologians consider the orig- 
inal and, from their theological standpoint, most acceptable 
form of the utterance. To be sure, it can not be denied even 
by them that the textual handling of the words was marked 
by a certain naiveté, because neither the Fathers nor the Gnos- 
tics seem to have been awake to the importance of noting the 
precise form of expression in so vital an issue. It evidently 
was at first a case of loosely plied exegesis, coupled with great 
freedom in quotation. ‘Tertullian attributes to Marcion the 
view that Jesus in our verse preached the “ignotus Deus’ of 
Gnosticism, i.e., the principle that the true Christian God was 
unknown during the Old Testament period. He makes this 
statement, however, without the least betrayal of grammatico- 
textual concern, and does not seem to have felt any controver- 
sial pressure towards a choice between “scit” and “cognovit,” 
Adv. Marc. IV, 52. Justin’s First Apology makes Jesus in 
our passage accuse the Jews of not having known God, a 
charge formally much alike that brought by the Gnostics 
against the Old Testament, but at bottom meant quite differ- 
ently, as appears from the accompanying reference to Isa. I, 3, 
where the Israelites are condemned for their practical, not their 
theoretical, ignorance of Jehovah. It is not until we come to 
Irenzeus that the question of antiquity and correctness of text 
enters into the debate, but even now by no means so obtrusively 
as is the case in present-day criticism. Irenzeus quotes our 
Lord as using the present “cognoscit” in both clauses. Then, 


154 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


charging the Gnostics with the presumption of wanting to be 
wiser than the Apostles, he bases this on their reading “cog- 
novit” instead of “‘cognoscit,” which reading enabled them to 
make the true knowledge of God begin with a cognition-act 
of Jesus, whereby the latter Himself was first introduced into 
that knowledge, Adv. Haer. IV, 6, 1. In his statement of the 
Gnostic position, he further puts the clause about the Son 
knowing the Father first, whereas in his own, immediately 
preceding quotation of the Gospel the opposite order is ob- 
served. While not explicitly condemning the other sequence, 
this certainly looks as though he meant to disapprove of it. 
And in a contiguous passage Irenzeus even reveals some in- 
sight into the theological bearings of the utterance altogether 
beside their proximate importance from an anti-Gnostic, his-. 
torical point of view. He remarks that the object and the 
subject of the reciprocal knowledge affirmed are one, which is 
equivalent to saying that Christ is God, Adv. Haer. IV, 6, 7. 
The Arian controversy helped to sharpen the perception of 
this fact. Victorinus, Adv. Arianum I, 15 observes that the 
reason for the mutual exclusive knowledge between Father and 
Son lies in the possession of the same substance by both. The 
above survey of the patristic employment of our passage has 
been gathered from the thorough rehearsal of the facts by 
Shumacher, pp. 6-10.*° 

_”More complicated is the critico-textual treatment to which 
in modern times the passage has been subjected. To dispose of 
the relatively minor issues first we may note in the first place 


10 Trenzus’ statement that the Gnostics were guilty of text-corruption in 
substituting the aorist éyyw for the present yevooxe Harnack makes the 
basis for affirming the very opposite, viz., that the orthodox preferred 
the present to the aorist, because it suited them better, and did not decide 
the question on the ground of fidelity to textual tradition. This, we take 
it, he means by saying: “The origin of the reading y:vooxet can be easily 
guessed from the charge of Ireneus; the present entered into Luke from 
Matthew, and it became fixed there from its anti-Marcionite character.” 
It is not, of course, primarily a question of ethics. Still we can hardly 
overlook that this charge casts an unpleasant sidelight on the character 
of the Church-father, which in turn can not but affect more or less his 
critical prestige. Perhaps we should remember more often that the doc- 
trinal farsightedness and critical acumen of the patristic writers can be 
overestimated; keeping this fact in mind may resolve many an apparent 
contradiction in their quoting-habits. 


THE SON OF GOD 155 


the variation in reading between the ordinary wapeddSy and the 
perfect tense mapadédoras which occurs in a certain group 
of codices. This is supposed to reveal doctrinal occupation 
with the words, because a historical act (aorist) seems to be 
changed by it into a timeless supra-historical act (perfect). 
We should then have to recognize here a purposeful modifica- 
tion of the text in the interest of orthodoxy. It is, however, 
doubtful whether such an animus actually underlies the vari- 
ation, which might be in itself harmless enough. The perfect 
simply marks the enduring result of a past act, but as to 
whether this act belongs to the sphere of eternity or of time 
is not determined by its use alone. The eternal and supra- 
temporal lies in the following words concerning “knowing” 
represented as an ever-present state. Justin Martyr uses both 
tenses, quite innocent of any desire to make the text fit his 
theology. Another minor point relates to the presence or ab- 
sence of uwov after to} matpd¢. In regard to this patristic 
quotations and the Versions differ among themselves. No 
doctrinal bias needs to have been at play here either. Justin, 
who omits the “ov yet strongly stresses the uniqueness of 
the Son-Father relationship. Further, and this can hardly be 
still called a minor issue, questions are raised concerning the 
authenticity as well as the integrity of the clause Matt. vs. 27¢c, 
Lk. 22c: “And to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal 
(him).” The clause, as pointed out above, is strongly ex- 
pressive of the coequal sovereignty exercised by the Son with 
the Father in the impartation of saving knowledge. It has 
been questioned whether the Son was originally the subject of 
this clause. The stray omission of the explicit subject in certain 
ancient authorities can prove but little for its original absence, 
as even Harnack feels inclined to concede. Besides the doubt 
with reference to the rightful presence of the subject in the 
sentence, doubt is likewise expressed about the appurtenance of 
Bobanras to the clause. With a slight change in the verb 
the dropping of Bobanray would yield & gay dmoxaAadyrn. 
All the codices have GovAnras and so have many of the An- 
cient Versions. In the patristic renderings there is consider- 
able variation, but the non liquet that might, at the worst, re- 


156 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


sult from this is fully made up for by clear indications from 
Origen, Irenzeus, Jerome, indications which also suggest that 
the real cause for the variation observable lay in the natural 
desire for greater terseness obtained through the abbreviation. 
In itself the adoption of the briefer form is of little importance, 
for even so the thought of the Son’s sovereignty in revealing 
remains. A real divergence of thought only results when the 
two main clauses of the verse are made to exchange places, 
for in that case the sovereignty spoken of would be predicated 
of the Father instead of the Son. 

This brings us face to face with the heart of the critical 
problem. The main question resolves itself into the three fol- 
lowing parts: 1) Did the original text read (éem)yuvdox 
in the Son-subject clause, or did it read &yyw? 2) Which 
of the two clauses, the Father-subject one or the Son-subject 
one, had the first place in the original text? 3) Ought the 
Father-subject clause perhaps to be entirely removed from the 
text? The questions are not independent one of the other, 
but interlinked. The Father-subject clause, which stands first 
in the T. R., referring to a divine knowledge, automatically 
excludes the aorist tense at least if this be understood in its 
strictly historical sense of a past transaction. And it is pre- 
cisely in such a strictly past sense that the aorist with refer- 
ence to the Son-subject clause is insisted upon. Consequently 
the symmetry of the logion is destroyed where the verb in the 
one clause is made (as is inevitable) the present, and the verb 
in the other clause (as under the pressure of doctrinal prefer- 
ence is next to inevitable) made the aorist. It needs scarcely 
pointing out that this is apt to produce a strong temptation 
towards deleting the entire first clause, thus eliminating the 
question of symmetry. If now we ask what is the evidence as 
to the points involved, we may safely for the answer confine 
ourselves to Schumacher’s criticism of Harnack, who is the 
chief modern advocate for changing the T. R. Harnack pre- 
sents no less than six reasons in support of his opinion that the 
original text, so far as capable of reconstruction, read as fol- 
lows in Q and in Luke: “All things were delivered (‘“‘tradited” ) 
to me by my Father, and no one has learned to know the Father 


THE SON OF GOD 157 


but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal.” ** This text 
Matthew modified in two respects: he substituted the present 
tense for the aorist, and he added the correlative clause about 
the Father’s knowing the Son. Harnack further intimates that 
Matthew already was guided by a doctrinal motive in intro- 
ducing these changes. At least he says they were made by the 
same Matthew who wrote XXVIII, 13. In Luke the changes 
were made later and entered from Matthew. 

Harnack quotes in favor of the aorist from among the Fa- 
thers, Justin, Tatian, Clement, Origen, Eusebius. Only he 
fails to take into account that all these writers do not exclusively 
have the aorist, but also use the present interchangeably with 
it. Does not this phenomenon point to the conclusion that, 
where no special reason for: preciseness existed, they quoted 
with a degree of inadvertence? MHarnack’s view is that Mat- 
thew originally had the present, Luke the aorist. For a long 
time, it seems, énuyuvdoxet and yuvdoxe and éyvw appeared 
as concurrent forms. .Shumacher draws from this the con- 
clusion that: in one of the two Gospels two forms must 
have occurred in variant texts, and this he thinks was in Mat- 
thew where yivooxe, and éyvw were found interchangeably, 
and proves it by reference to the explicit statement of 
Origen, who in a certain passage, comparing Matthew with 


11 Jt will be noticed that Harnack represents as the object of the Son’s 
éyvo not the Father, taken: personally and comprehensively, but the sole 
fact that God is Father. The statement expresses nothing else than that 
Jesus was the first to recognize God in his fatherhood. And in that rec- 
ognition consisted the essence of Jesus’ sonship. To know the Father 
means to know Him as Father. For the correlative clause, that the Father 
alone has known or come to know the Son, this would yield an even more 
strange and strained idea than in the other relationship. But this latter 
difficulty Harnack meets, as we shall see, by the removal of the correlative 
clause, on what doubtless appear to him sufficient textual critical grounds. 
Here we simply remark that, strictly speaking, this peculiar definition of 
the Son’s acquired knowledge is not essential to Harnack’s reconstruction of 
the passage. It would be just as conceivable to understand that Jesus had 
acquired a comprehensive knowledge of the divine character in every re- 
spect as to confine the knowledge received by Him strictly to the fatherhood 
of God. At the same time such contraction of the object of knowledge puts 
the knowledge at just one farther remove from every metaphysical under- 
standing of it, and this,is what is above all desired» The preference - for 
the tense-form (aorist) and the limitation of the verb’s object wore) to-’ 
gether beautifully toward this end. . 


158 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Luke, gives “novit” for the former and “‘scit” for the latter. 
We submit that this is just as plausible a version of the his- 
tory of the text as Harnack’s suggestion. Schumacher also 
calls attention to the fact that there exists such a thing as what 
grammarians call “the Gnomic aorist,” a tense without conno- 
tation of time. “Eyvo, when found with the Fathers, need 
not have to them carried with it the strictly historical meaning 
of a past act, for the said Fathers do not abstain from speak- 
ing in the same aorist of the Father’s knowing the Son.” 
The double form in the First Gospel may also be due to the 
twofold possible rendering which the same consonantal-Ara- 
maic form might receive. 7 could equally well be read as 
a preterite (corresponding to the Greek aorist) and as a 
participle (corresponding to the Greek present).** 

Remains still the question of the sequence of the two correla- 
tive clauses. Keim and Wellhausen would have us throw out 
the entire first clause in which the Son is the object. Well- 
hausen’s argument is very terse and summary: “The clause 
should not stand first and can not stand last.’”’ And Harnack 
calls the whole idea of the Father’s knowledge of the Son an 
exceedingly strange idea. The whole context revolves, he ob- 
serves, around a knowledge of which God is the object, and 
within such a train of thought there is no place for a knowledge 
of the Son by the Father. This whole reasoning of Harnack’s 
rests on an inadequate apprehension of the drift of the pas- 
sage as a whole. Vs. 25 shows that there is a revelation im- 
parted by the Father. This revelation has for its central ob- 
ject “the Son.’”’ Consequently an absolute and exclusive knowl- 
edge of the Son by the Father forms its indispensable prerequi- 


12 Tn regard to the Latins, who are also drawn into the debate, it should 
be remembered that the Latin “novit” very often is as to meaning a real 
present, and not an aorist. It means: “to have possession of the knowl- 
edge of.” The only sure proof of equivalence of the form used to a Greek 
text with aorist is when “cognovit” appears. This is a real historical aorist. 
Harnack and others also appeal to the other prs aorists in the preced- 
ing context (aréxpv¥ac, arexddv¥ac, éyéveto, taped607). This appeal has no 
force because these other aorists all refer, by common consent, to tem- 
poral acts and therefore should not be considered so many reasons for what 
may be expected in our passage, where the time- or the eternity-character 
of the affirmation is the very thing at issue. 

18 Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 233. 


THE SON OF GOD 159 


site. But, it is urged further, the term éyva@ does not fit into 
the nature of the divine knowledge, which, as divine, can not 
be described by an historical tense. But we may answer the 
occurrence of éyy@ as descriptive of the Father’s knowing 
might be explained on the principle either of inadvertence in 
quoting or on the understanding of the aorist as Gnomic. 

Harnack still further adduces the argument that the clause, 
“and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal’’ does not 
properly connect with the statement about the Father’s ex- 
clusive knowledge of the Son, to which it nevertheless in cer- 
tain forms of the Lucan text appears immediately subjoined, 
a combination which would involve that the Son was the inter- 
preter of Himself and not of God. And in general, he ob- 
serves in another place, the whole statement about the Father’s 
knowledge with the Son as object is in conflict with the natural 
sequence of thought since the delivering of all things to the 
Son had just been spoken of, to which the logically proximate 
sequel could only be that the Son in consequence knows the 
Father. Every interposed reference to the other process of the 
knowledge of the Father concerning the Son is out of place. 
And the position which the sentence might occupy at the close 
of the entire logion is likewise impossible because it brings 
the object of the last-mentioned knowledge, the Son, in conflict 
with the fact that the Son is at the same time represented as 
the revealer, which is again unnatural. 

Both considerations are without force. In our positive ex- 
position given above we have explained why on purely con- 
textual grounds the declaration that the Father knows the Son, 
not only can come first in order, but ought to come first be- 
cause the revelation of the Son as the center of “these things’’ 
had been first spoken of, vs. 25, Lk. vs. 21, and needed first 
to receive an explanation of its basis. To this, however, there 
was no need of adding the sovereignty-affirmation clause, since 
that idea also had already found clear expression in the pre- 
ceding context, vs. 26, in Matthew, vs. 21, in Luke. On the 
other hand, after the exclusive knowledge of the Father by 
the Son had been affirmed there was immediate need of join- 
ing to it the statement covering both the fact of the revela- 


160 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


tion made by the Son and the principle of sovereignty on 
which this revelation is exercised. The clause in question 
is precisely in the place where it ought to be, and its alleged 
incongruousness to the surroundings should afford no ground 
for doubting the authenticity of the entire sentence of the Fa- 
ther’s knowledge of the Son. The difficulties here are of Har- 
nack’s own creating. They are partly due to his over-free 
handling of the text. 

The next passage containing an affirmation of sonship by 
Jesus with reference to Himself occurs in the episode of the 
demand for the payment of the half-shekel. It is recorded by 
Matthew alone, XVII, 24-27. Jesus asserts his freedom from 
paying the tax prescribed by the law on the ground of his being 
a son who as such should be exempt from taxation. For de- 
termining the nature of this sonship all here depends on the 
question whether Jesus’ assertion of freedom applies to Him- 
self only or to Peter likewise. On the former view a unique 
sonship must be thought of, something in which Peter does not 
share. On this supposition it will, of course, still remain un- 
determined,- whether the unique sonship is Messianic sonship 
or something still higher. In both cases the reasoning would 
be equally cogent; both the Messiah-Son and the intra-divine 
Son are free from tax-obligation. On the other hand, if Peter 
be included, the sonship must be of a kind that Jesus and the 
Apostle can have in common. The thing naturally suggesting 
itself in this connection is the filial relation to God character- 
istic of the Kingdom of God in distinction of the Old Testa- 
ment order of affairs. It is somewhat difficult to choose be- 
tween these two views. The use of the plural in vs. 25 (“then 
are the sons free’’) is not decisive, because induced by the set- 
ting of the figure, which speaks likewise, and naturally so, in 
the plural (“of whom do the kings of the earth take custom 
or tribute? of their own children or of strangers?) Jesus in his 
application of the figure (“therefore the sons are free’) might 
have retained the plural for the sake of conformity to the fig- 
ure. ‘Two other circumstances come under consideration which 
unfortunately point in opposite directions. On the one hand 
the original question, while put to Peter, had made no mention 


THE SON OF GOD 161 


of Peter, but only of Jesus: “Does not your teacher pay the 
half-shekel?’’ On the other hand, through the miracle Jesus 
provides for both Peter and Himself, and explicitly enjoins 
Peter: “Give unto them for thee and me.’”’ On the whole the 
last consideration seems to carry the greater weight. It is 
probable then, though not absolutely certain, that Jesus here 
ascribes to Himself a sonship in the ethico-religious sense.** 
More of importance can be gathered from the parable of 
the wicked husbandmen, Matt. XXI, 33-46; Mk. XII, I-12; 
Lk. XX, 9-19. The Lord of the vineyard sends servant after 
servant, and the mission of all these having proved fruitless, 
he sends his son ( Matt.) or his one beloved son (Mk.), or his 
beloved son (Lk.). It is clear that sonship here involves a 
higher dignity and a closer relation to God than the highest 
and closest that the Old Testament had known of official status 
in the theocracy. More is expected from the mission of the 
Son, because he is the Son. And it is further implied in the 
parable that the Son is the last, the final, ambassador, that after 
he has been sent nothing more can be done. The Lord of the 
vineyard has no further resources; the Son is the highest mes- 
senger of God conceivable. Hence for rejecting Him absolute 
destruction befalls the husbandmen; no sooner is He intro- 
duced and cast out than the whole process of God’s dealing 
with the theocracy reaches its termination. Herein lies the 
reason why Jesus rectifies the answer of the rulers to his ques- 
tion: “What will the Lord of the vineyard do to those hus- 
bandmen?’” ‘They had answered: “He will miserably destroy 
those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other 
husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their season.” 
This answer assumed that nothing more radical would follow 
than a change of administration, that Caiaphas and his fellows, 
the Sanhedrists, would be destroyed, and other rulers put in 


14Qn the interpretation above given the episode contains a lesson con- 
cerning the attitude the disciples are to assume towards the O. T. institu- 
tions. By paying the tax for Peter and Himself, not on the principle of 
obligation, but from the desire to avoid offense, our Lord virtually justified 
the continued observance by Jewish Christians of the O. T. mode of life, 
with the proviso that this should be done in a spirit of freedom in order 
not to harm others, not from a sense of legal obligation carrying with it the 
idea of meritoriousness. 


162 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


their places, after which the theocracy might go on as before. 
It is this facile assumption that Jesus corrects; to his mind the 
answer was utterly inadequate. They had not appreciated the 
full gravity of the rejection of the Son of God as entailing the 
complete overthrow of the theocracy and the rearing of a new 
structure from the foundation upward in which the Son, thus 
rejected, would receive full vindication and supreme honor: 
“Did ye never read in the Scriptures, the stone which the 
builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner; 
this was from the Lord, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 
Therefore I say unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken 
away from you, and it shall be given to a nation bringing forth 
the fruits thereof; and he that falleth on this stone shall be 
broken to pieces, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter 
him as dust.” All this attributes to the sonship of Jesus 
transcendent significance such as can be measured only in 
terms of the consequences of his rejection. Now it might be 
said that this need not go beyond Messiahship because rejec- 
tion of the Messiah-Son is serious enough to account for all 
the destructive results apprehended. Nevertheless we believe 
that the parable invites us to go further than this. Allegorizing 
of parables should, of course, be avoided. But allegorizing 
exists only where incidental features having no organic con- 
nection with the central point of the parable are made signifi- 
cant on their own account. But this is not the case here. We 
insist upon the point that"the Son is represented by the very 
structure of the parable as being the Son before his mission. 
His being sent describes in figurative terms his Messiahship, 
but his Messiahship was precisely brought about by the neces- 
sity of sending one who was the highest and dearest that the 
lord of the vineyard could delegate: “They will reverence my 
Son.’”’ The sonship, therefore, existed antecedently to the Mes- 
sianic mission; otherwise the main, central thought of the 
parable is injured. And the terms employed to describe the 
sonship fully bear this out. He is the “beloved Son,” the 
“one beloved Son,” dear to the Father, whether He be sent 
or not, but on account of his dearness the only possible person 
equal to the emergency. What links these two conceptions of 


THE SON OF GOD 163 


antecedent sonship and Messiahship together in the same man- 
ner is the thought of his being the heir. For heirship, again, 
is nothing else but Messianic possession of all things. Because 
He is the Son antecedently, He is made the heir. Here then, 
as well as in Matt. XI, we can see clearly how Jesus carries 
into his Messianic life much of the content of his filial life and 
yet this does not justify the complete identification of the 
two relationships. His filial status covers the whole extent of 
his Messianic function, but we can not say vice versa that his 
filial status as to content and dignity is exhausted by his Mes- 
siahship so that “Son of God” would here figure as a mere 
Messianic title.” 

A sonship with reference to God higher than the average 
Jewish conception of Messiahship is implied in Jesus’ reason- 
ing with the Scribes about the Messiah’s being “the Son of 
David,” Matt. XXII, 41-46; Mk. XII, 35-37; Lk. XX, 41-46. 
Not a few modern commentators assume that the form of the 
question, “How do they say that the Christ is the Son of 
David?,” requires a negative answer as to the question of fact: 
He is not, or can not be, the Son of David. This, they be- 
lieve, is further indicated by the argument drawn from Psa. 
CX, in which the phrase “my Lord,” put into David’s mouth, 
seems to be exclusive of the other relationship, that of father 
and son, between the two. And decisive above all is to their 
minds the conclusion drawn: “If therefore David calls him 
Lord how is he his son?.” And yet, grammatically easy, nay, 
imperative, as this exegesis seems, it is historically beset with 
serious difficulties. The question immediately arises what 
interest Jesus could have had in raising and arguing this 
genealogical point with the Pharisees. Davidic descent could 
not have constituted to his mind a disqualification for Messiah- 
ship, however much or little significance He in the abstract 
might have attached to it. On the few occasions where He 
was addressed by this title there is no evidence of his having 
resented or repudiated it.*° It were foolish to read into the 
situation an allusion to the virgin-birth, for the latter is in no 


15 Cp. Zahn, Das Ev. des Matth., in loco. 
16 Matt. IX, 27; XII, 23; XV, 22; XX, 30, 31; XXI, 29. 


164 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


wise exclusive of Davidic descent. Neither for Jesus Himself 
nor for the early Church could the question of sonship from 
David have figured as an issue against Judaism. To this there 
is added another difficulty when we remember how the descent 
from David was a fixed item of belief among the early Chris- 
tians. Acts II, 30; XIII, 23; Rom. I, 3; II Tim. II, 8; Heb. 
VII, 14; Rev. V, 5; XXII, 16, not to speak now of the gene- 
alogies in Matthew and Luke, bear witness to this belief. The 
point we wish to urge here is not that these passages in them- 
selves prove the fact of the descent from David. That may 
be left to one side for the present purpose. But the wide- 
spread conviction certainly proves that Jesus could not pos- 
sibly in so open a manner as the exegesis referred to assumes 
have denied his descent from David, for in the face of such an 
explicit denial the uniform assumption that He was thus 
descended could not have established or maintained itself. 
Once more, the Pharisees were not naive enough to think that 
genealogical descent from David, as such, would have inter- 
fered with the Messiah’s being David’s Lord. Nor is it 
permitted to interpret the whole incident as a mere argu- 
mentative tilt of Jesus with his opponents, on which sup- 
position, of course, there would not be implied any commit- 
tal on Jesus’ part on the question of Davidic descent, either 
pro or con. Besides, our Lord speaks in a tone too serious 
for such an endeavor to involve the Pharisees in a contradic- 
tion, for He reminds them quite solemnly of the fact that 
David called the Messiah “my Lord” in the Spirit. It is evi- 
dent that we must eliminate the entire genealogical element 
from the interpretation. “David’s son” is meant here in the 
technical sense of a Messianic title. As such it carries with 
itself in the Christology of the Pharisees certain assumptions. 
These can be best summed up in this—that the Christ was sup- 
posed to be David’s “heir.”” And in the conception of his 
being David’s heir the view found expression that He derived 
his sovereignty and powers from David. This involved fur- 
ther the belief that the Messiahship moved in the national- 
political sphere, for it was only in that sphere that inheritance 
from David could be the determining factor. It is this belief 


THE SON OF GOD 165 


our Lord wants to criticize, and He does so by placing over 
against this the other, the true type of Messianism, that which 
lifts it to a higher supra-political plane, the plane of the world 
to come, not, to be sure, as this world was understood by his 
opponents, but as it was conceived by Himself. This kind of 
eschatology finds characteristic expression in the name “Lord 
of David.” The contention is between two types of Messianic 
hope marked respectively by the conceptions of inheritance 
from David and lordship over David. Looking at it from this 
point of view, it is not permissible to concentrate the whole 
argument on the one suffix “my” and the noun “Lord” which 
it accompanies. The lordship for which Jesus contends, on 
the basis of the Psalm, is of such a comprehensive and unique 
character as to overthrow at one stroke the entire Pharisaic 
eschatological and Christological structure. Hence Jesus takes 
pains to quote enough of the Psalm to make the content and 
purview of the lordship unmistakably clear: it amounts to sit- 
ting at the right hand of God and subjection of all enemies 
underneath the Messiah’s feet. That the Messiah could not 
possibly have inherited from David no matter how surely his 
genealogical connection with the latter were established. Now 
in Mark and Luke it is not stated, at least not explicitly, that 
this transcendental aspect of the Messianic sovereignty likewise 
has a sonship related to a higher source underlying it. Inti- 
mated, to be sure, it is even here because sitting at the right 
hand of God and inheriting world-sovereignty inevitably sug- 
gest the conception of sonship as their natural basis. But the 
form of the statement in Matthew goes further in this direc- 
tion. Here the question reads: “What think ye of the Christ ? 
Whose son is he?’. This suggests that, corresponding to the 
Pharisaic derivation, which underlay the Pharisaic type of 
Christology, there is another kind of derivation, that from God 
Himself, which alone can explain the transcendental Chris- 
tology. The Messiah must be “God’s Son” in order to be 
capable of the things predicated of Him in the Psalm. Here 
then the divine sonship of Jesus is represented as the basis 
of that higher character of the Messiahship that expressed his 
own ideal: because He is the Son of God, He rules in the world 


166 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


to come. Nor do we think it straining the words too much 
if we find in Jesus’ statement the implication that the Messianic 
sovereignty must cover the world to come because only as an 
inhabitant of that world could David be subject to it. The 
conclusion of the matter is that while sonship connotes Mes- 
siahship, it at the same time points back to a higher relation- 
ship from which the Messianic relationship derived its unique 
character. The utterance should therefore be placed on a line 
with the passage in Matt. XI and the parable of the wicked 
husbandmen. With the latter it has in common that as the 
Son is spoken of objectively there, so the Christ here, without 
being explicitly identified by Jesus with Himself.*? 

Somewhat difficult to answer is the question in which sense 
Jesus is called ‘the Son” in the saying of Matt. XXIV, 36; 
Mk, XIII, 32: “Concerning that day or the hour no one know- 
eth, not even the angels in heaven, neither [not even] the 
Son, except the Father.” It is evident that a not-knowing in 
regard to eschatological matters is here predicated of Jesus. 
At the same time a knowledge higher than that possessed by 
angels is ascribed to Him. Only as compared with the Father 
He falls short in not possessing the information referred to. 
Two things have contributed towards finding the standard for 
the scale of knowledge affirmed in the several natures of those 
enumerated. In regard to the angels it has been assumed to 
mean necessarily a matter of nature, as securing a certain de- 
gree of insight or knowledge to which lower natures have no 


17 Spitta, Streitfragen der Geschichte Jesu, pp. 167-172 rightly insists that 
the antithesis between “David’s son” and “David’s Lord” has for its back- 
ground the distinction between this world and the world to come. Only he 
has in connection with this his own peculiar explanation of the episode. 
In his view it belongs to the dispute with the Sadducees about the 
question of the resurrection. In Matthew and Mark the true connection 
has been lost through inserting the account of the ruler’s enquiry concerning 
the greatest commandment, so that now the point of the argument appears 
directed against the Pharisees and Scribes. But in Luke the true con- 
tinuity has been preserved, although even here Spitta assumes that vss. 
37-40 do not belong to the original discourse because in them the point of 
argumentation is different from that in the foregoing and in the sequel. 
The real import of our Lord’s reasoning, according to Spitta, is that from 
the twofold designation of the Messiah as David’s son and David’s Lord 
the reality of the resurrection follows, because these two names can belong 
only to the two successive states of this age and the age to come. 


THE SON OF GOD 167 


access. And, on the other hand, the distinction between “the 
Son” and “the Father’ has seemed to point in the same di- 
rection because these forms with the article are in the Synop- 
tics always used of the specific relation of Jesus to God. Some- 
times even from an orthodox side this interpretation is seized 
upon on account of its vindicating for the Son a superangelic 
nature, which then, since no specific nature between the angels 
and God is known to exist, is straightway identified with the 
divine nature so that the passage becomes an argument for the 
Deity of Jesus. This view overlooks that in the same respect 
in which superiority of knowledge to the angels is affirmed, 
inferiority with regard to God is affirmed. Consequently by 
basing the argument on the difference in nature, not full Deity 
would be attained, but some nature midway between the angels 
and God, a result lying on the line of Arianism and not of the 
orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. As a matter of fact the 
two considerations stated above do not compel to think of 
diversification of nature as underlying the scale construed. 
The angels are throughout in Scripture messengers, that is 
carriers of information communicated to them, and not sup- 
posed spontaneously to arise out of their natural endow- 
ment with knowledge. And the contrast between “the Son” 
and “the Father,’ while specific to the mutual relation be- 
tween these two, is not restricted to a description of their extra- 
or supra-Messianic divine relationship within the Trinity. The 
current paraphrase of the argument in the following form: 
man knows certain things by nature, the angels know more 
things in virtue of superior nature, the Son knows still more 
things in virtue of a still superior nature, this paraphrase, we 
say, will have to be abandoned. There is moreover something 
in the character of the knowledge spoken of that forbids us 
to conceive of it as knowledge, which for its accessibility would 
depend on a qualification of nature. The knowledge denied 
to men, angels and Son is a knowledge specifically of “that 
day” (i.e., the day of judgment) and of the hour (i.e. the 
time of the coming of “that day”). Such a knowledge is not 
subject to greater or lesser accessibility by reason of nature, 
for it is a knowledge concerning a definite point of chrono- 


168 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


logical fact, the reason for whose chronological emergence can 
only lie in the decree of God, and becomes the property of 
others only through definite information granted to them. 
The correct paraphrase, therefore, will have to read: men are 
informed of certain things, angels are informed about more 
things, the Son in virtue of his Messianic office is informed 
about still more things, but this question of “that day” and 
its hour has not been communicated even to Him as an item 
of official knowledge. As to how this matter-of-fact igno- 
rance is to be explained in One who elsewhere affirms of Him- 
self a knowledge of God equal to God’s knowledge of Himself 
(Matt. XI, 27) can not on the basis of this passage alone be 
even indicated. Of course it is necessary to maintain that 
whatever ignorance existed in the Son must have existed within 
the limits of his human nature. But this is no more than a 
statement, highly valuable as such, by which one guards the 
vital doctrine of the two natures. A real elucidation of the 
problem psychologically, if one may so speak, it does not sup- 
ply. In reality it only leads us to the threshold of the ulterior 
problem as to how the interaction of the two natures pos- 
sessed by the one subject, and that particularly in the matter of 
knowledge, is to be understood. To return again for a mo- 
ment to the first paraphrase, above rejected, it is, of course, 
impermissible first to affirm the superiority above the angels 
as due to the divine nature, and then, when the inferiority in 
knowledge to God is considered, to resort to the possession 
of a human nature by Jesus. This would be an exegetical 
mode of measuring with two measures, which here, as little 
as in any other sphere, can be allowed. Still another problem, 
no more solvable than the preceding one on the basis of this 
saying alone, lies in the fact that our Lord has elsewhere made 
definite predictions concerning “that day,’ and to some extent 
also concerning its hour of coming, which seem hard to recon- 
cile with any view that would find in our passage an avowal 
of unqualified ignorance. Upon this phase of the problem also 
we can not here enter. We content ourselves with drawing 
the conclusion that Jesus is here called “the Son” in yirtue 
of his Messianic office, with the understanding always that 


THE SON OF GOD 169 


the office is so high in the scale of divine commissionership 
as to assure the highest degree of initiation into the counsel of 
God as compared with all creatures, not excluding even the 
angels. | 

Before passing on to the cases in which others employ the 
title “Son of God” in speaking of Jesus, we must briefly look 
into the statements of our Lord Himself that imply his son- 
ship with reference to God through speaking of the latter as 
“my Father.” It is not easy to determine how much of offi- 
cial consciousness, or even of higher consciousness, flows into 
this. The clearest case is perhaps Lk. XXII, 29, where the 
words “as my Father appointed to me a kingdom”’ represent 
the appointment of Jesus to the Messianic office as the result 
of God being his Father. In other instances the phrase has 
a decided official coloring; the Father is acting in relations de- 
termined by the Messianic function of Jesus: He receives the 
confession made by the Son with reference to a believer, and 
the guarantee for this Jesus seems to find in the Father’s hon- 
oring the word of the Son, Matt. X, 32, 33. A recognition 
of the authoritativeness of the One called “my Father’ is 
voiced in the saying about the plant which my heavenly Father 
planted not, Matt. XV, 13. The vision of the face of “my 
Father’ in Matt. XVIII, 10 joins fatherhood and sonship to 
the Messianic consummation. In Matt. XVIII, 14, ‘“‘it is 
not the will of your Father that one of these little ones should 
perish,” the reading varies between “my Father’ and “your 
Father”; the former has Messianic sound; the second would 
lie beside the present discussion. In vs. 19 of the same con- 
text the Messianic idea shines through: it is the Sender of 
the Son, who fulfills the prayers of the disciples. The king- 
dom is prepared for the followers of Jesus by God in the 
capacity of “my Father,’ Matt. XX, 23, and it is as the King 
that in the last day Jesus speaks: “Come ye blessed of my 
Father,” Matt. XXV, 34. The Kingdom-idea, and with it 
the Messianic idea, emerges in the word about the new wine 
to be drunk in “the Kingdom of my Father,” Matt. X XVI, 
29; the legions of angels that could be sent by “my Father” 
would be sent in the defense of the Messiah. The promise of 


170 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


“my Father’ (i.e., the thing promised by my Father) belongs 
to the sphere of Messianic fulfilment, Lk. XXIV, 49. In two 
instances in Matthew the official sense and the higher sense 
are most intimately united; this is the case where Jesus speaks 
of the comprehensive revelation-commission given to Him as 
given by “my Father,” and yet the term “Father” is pregnant 
with super-Messianic, divine content, as has been shown in 
the discussion of Matt. XI, 27 above. The other instance is 
in Matt. XVI, 17, where the disclosure to Peter of the Christ- 
hood of Jesus is attributed to “my Father in heaven,” and yet 
in the confession of Peter the perspective is extended from 
“the Christ” to “the Son of the living God.” The more 
or less clear instances of the ethico-religious connotation are 
the following: Lk. II, 49, “in my Father’s house”; Matt. VII, 
21, “he that doeth the will of my Father’; XII, 50, “whoso- 
ever shall do the will of my Father who is‘in heaven, he is my 
brother and sister and mother.” XVIII, 35, “so shall also my 
heavenly Father do unto you, if you forgive not every one 
his brother from your hearts.” In most of the sayings here 
grouped together no certain decision can be reached. The 
chief cause for this will have to be sought in the fact that 
in the consciousness of Jesus, since these varied relationships 
were not mechanically added, but, as we hope to show after- 
wards, organically united, no expression of the one can have 
been possible without an inner side-reference of feeling to 
the other. 


CHAPTER XI 
THE SON OF GOD (Continued) 
ASCRIPTION OF THE TITLE TO JESUS BY OTHERS 


Jesus is called the Son of God in the Synoptic Gospels by 
the following speakers: Satan and the demons; his enemies of 
the Jewish opposition; the disciples; the Angel at the annun- 
ciation according to Luke; the voice from heaven at the bap- 
tism and the transfiguration. 

The demons employing the title thereby express proximately 
their knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. Hence they use 
the address interchangeably with that of “the Holy One 
of God,” Mk. I, 24; Lk. IV, 34. It should not be over- 
looked, however, that in their mouths the content of the title 
necessarily exceeds that of a purely natural being. Wrede, 
as we had occasion to notice before, has acutely observed 
that the fact of the demons recognizing his character first im- 
plies the supernaturalness of this character. What the demons 
display is not mere inferential knowledge gathered from ob- 
servation of Jesus’ procedure and acts, for in that case not 
they, but the disciples associated with Him, ought to have been 
the first observers. The knowledge is of an intuitive, super- 
natural kind. Because they are themselves supernatural spirits, 
they “scent,” according to the realistic description of Wrede, 
the supernatural in Jesus. It is a case of spirit recognizing 
spirit. Hence we are told in Mk. III, 11: “And the unclean 
spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, 
and cried, saying, thou art the Son of God.” An equally il- 
luminating incident is that recorded in Mk. V, 6: “And when 
he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and prostrated himself, and, 
crying out with a loud voice, he says, “What have I to do 


with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God?” (cp. the 
171 


172 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


parallel passage in Lk, VIII, 28). It is true, the verbs here de- 
scribing the acts of the demons, mpooninrew and mpooxvvery 
are not exclusively used of religious veneration. They can 
not, without more, be turned into an argument in favor of 
recognition by the demons of the Deity of Jesus. Maitt. II, 2, 
8, 11; XVIII, 26; Mk. XV, 19, show that the acts might apply, 
where an acknowledgment of royal dignity is involved. But 
even in such cases the line between a sub-religious and a reli- 
gious act should not be too sharply drawn, because deification of 
rulers prevailed. The two words, and especially mpooxvvecy 
have also a specifically religious meaning in which they express 
prostration before a higher supernatural power. The latter is 
the word used by Jesus in his answer to Satan: “It is written, 
thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him alone shalt thou 
serve.’ And there can be little doubt but the act of the demons 
partook of this nature: it was a recognition of his lordship and 
power in the world of spirits. It anticipated that of which 
Paul speaks in Philippians, that at the naming of the name 
of Jesus every knee shall be made to bow of those under the 
earth no less than of those in heaven and on earth. It does 
not necessarily follow from this that the demons recognized 
by such a prostration the absolute Deity of our Lord. They 
might not have been over-particular in the matter of paying 
religious homage to one regarded of a lower rank than the 
Highest God, cp. Mk. V, 7, where the demon says to Jesus: 
“T conjure thee by God.”’ But it is certain that they are repre- 
sented as divining something supernatural in Jesus’ Person. 
Some have even thought that the demons are meant by Mark 
to represent pagan deities. This would mean that these gods 
recognized Jesus’ superiority to themselves and acknowledged 
Him to be the true God.* 

The same implications are present in the manner of Satan’s 
address to Jesus at the temptation. He also knew Jesus im- 
mediately as soon as the latter had begun his work. His 
knowledge, like that of the demons, was not the result of 


1Cp. Johannes Weiss, Das Glteste Ev., pp. 51, 52. On the subject of 
demoniacal classification of Jesus may be compared, Lepin, Jesus Messie et 
Fils de Dieu, pp. 277, 278. 


THE SON OF GOD 173 


observation, but of supernatural knowledge. When Satan 
twice addresses Him as “the Son of God,” he combines with 
this not merely Messiahship in general, but particularly a type 
of Messiahship lifting Him far above the level of the natural. 
Not merely power to do miracles, and the right to special pro- 
tection, and the title to rule over the kingdoms are conceded 
for Jesus, but Satan suggests the assumption by Jesus of an 
attitude of sovereign self-sufficiency such as is the opposite 
to all creaturehood and faith. 

It might, perhaps, be objected to the above train of reason- 
ing that the supernatural element forming the object of such 
demoniacal recognition of Jesus was nothing else but the pres- 
ence of the Spirit in Him. But this is not indicated in the 
Gospel account, rather the opposite. The demons say, ““We 
know thee, who thou art,” relating the supernatural to the 
Person of Jesus rather than to his equipment. In general the 
possession of the Holy Spirit, while actually referred to as 
the source of the supernatural in Jesus’ works, is by no means 
uniformly, nor even frequently, thought of in such connections. 
In most cases the attention is drawn to something back of that, 
to a personal, not merely charismatic, qualification, and it is 
precisely this element that finds expression in his sonship as 
acknowledged by the demons.’ 

From the demons and Satan we pass on to the human ene- 
mies of Jesus. The Sanhedrists at his trial took Jesus’ affirma- 
tion of his divine sonship as blasphemy. This charge indicates 
that sonship, as claimed by Jesus, can not have been to their 
minds the simple equivalent of Messiahship. It is true, efforts 
have been made to account for the incrimination on that basis. 
But the mere claim to Messiahship, even though unsubstan- 
tiated in the opinion of the judges, can not have been regarded 
as blasphemous. Nor could the blasphemy have been found in 
this, that Jesus persisted in making this claim under circum- 
stances that rendered it preposterous. All this could at the 
utmost prove deceit on Jesus’ part, or folly, not blasphemy. 
And the circumstances that were most flagrantly at variance 
with the Messianic pretension were of the Jews’ own creating. 


2 Weiss, Das Glteste Ev., pp. 48, 49. 


174 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


They were responsible for his imprisonment and impending 
death. It would have been a strange conceit, therefore, so 
strange indeed that not even the passion of extreme hostility 
could wholly account for it, if they had charged Jesus with 
figuring in a blasphemous situation, which they themselves had 
brought about.* Something might perhaps be said in favor of 
this mode of reasoning, if Jesus Himself before the Sanhedrin 
had insisted upon the essentialness of his death to his Messiah- 
ship, but this He did not do. Paul might have reasoned thus 
to justify his persecution of the followers of Jesus, for to 
him the crucifixion was an accomplished fact for which he was 
not himself personally responsible. In the case of the Jews 
it was for them to tell whether He was to die or not. A 
Talmudic passage quoted by Dalman shows that false Mes- 
sianic pretensions, while under circumstances punishable by 
death, were not considered in themselves blasphemous: “Bar 
Koziba reigned two years and a half. When he said to the 
Rabbins, I am the Messiah, they answered him: of the Mes- 
siah it is written that he judges by smell; let us see whether 
he is able to do this. When they saw that he was not, they 
put him to death.” * There is no reference to blasphemy in 
this. It appears to have been purely a question of fact. He 
was executed as a deceiver. But Jesus was condemned as a 
blasphemer. The high-priest rent his garments over it. Nor 
can the blasphemy have been found in the word against the 
temple at first charged against Jesus. For according to Mark 
the testimony did not bear out the truthfulness of this charge, 
and it had to be abandoned. Moreover Jesus did not reply 
when it was uttered. With regard to the actual blasphemy the 
high-priest states explicitly : “What have we need of witnesses? 


8 Even Holtzmann is caught in this circulus vitiosus when he says: “One 
abandoned by his friends, captured by his enemies, helplessly delivered to 
the fate of being cast out by his people and executed in disgrace ... such 
a man dares to lay claim for himself to the most sacred expectations of 
his people . . . and thus dares to surrender these expectations to the most 
cruel disappointment; if this is not blasphemy, what does deserve the 
name?” Das Mess. Bewusstsein Jesu, p. 33. 

4 Die Worte Jesu, I, p. 257; Bar Koziba, ‘ ‘the son of lying,” was a name 
applied to him after his failure. Originally he was called Bar Kochba, “son 
of the star,” referring to Nu. XXIV, 17. The idea of judging by smell is 
derived from ES ae @ ieee 


THE SON OF GOD 175 


Behold now ye have heard the blasphemy.’”’ Nor could a word 
against the temple have of itself been blasphemous, because it 
could not be construed as an insult offered to God directly. 
Jer. XXVI, 11 does not prove that the prophet’s utterances 
against the temple were regarded as blasphemy by his enemies ; 
they were considered high-treason and on this was set the pen- 
alty of death. Nothing remains therefore but to conclude 
that the blasphemy lay in Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God. 
Not as though this figured as something altogether apart from 
his claim to Messiahship. We shall rather have to conceive 
of it after this manner, that in the opinion of his accusers He 
carried his Messianic Son-of-God claim to a point where the 
implied identification with God rendered it blasphemous. It 
may remain an open question whether the words of the high- 
priest take the compound phrase “‘the Christ, the Son of God” 
off the lips of Jesus or whether they reflect the compound 
idea of Son of God-Messiahship as orthodox Jewish Christol- 
ogy. Inthe former case the high-priest would not commit him- 
self to any such superhuman conception of Messiahship. We 
should have to paraphrase the question as follows: Dost thou 
then actually claim such an extraordinary, impossible dignity? 
In the other case the conception would be recognized as ortho- 
dox, and the avowal required would consist in whether Jesus 
aspires to be this correctly conceived superhuman Messiah. 
In either case the charge of blasphemy would apply. But on 
the former view it would be a blasphemy not merely of sinful 
pretension: back of that would lie the blasphemy of Christo- 
logical heresy infringing by its mere daring on the prerogative 
of God. The high-priest and his counsellors can not have been 
overmuch concerned about the construction of the Messianic 


5 Wellhausen thinks that the Gospel tradition still reveals knowledge of 
the word against the temple as the real ground of Jesus’ condemnation, and 
that it betrays the effort to obliterate this, from the later Christian stand- 
point objectionable, feature. He believes, however, that Matthew was not 
actuated by such a motive. To our mind the distinction in this respect be- 
tween Matthew and Mark has no real basis. For Matthew also says in 
vs. 59 “false witness.” How does this differ in effect from Mark, who says 
simply “witness” in vs. 55, but “false witness” in vs. 57? Luke foregoes 
all reference to the two witnesses and their charge concerning the temple. 
It is this silence that Wellhausen regards as suspicious, a very slender 
thread certainly to bind his interpretation to. Das Ev. Mark, p. 133. 


176 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


dogma, something not lying particularly in the line of Sad- 
duczic belief. In a matter of this kind they would be likely 
to voice the average orthodox view, and is there evidence that 
the orthodox party had reached the conception of a divine, or at 
least of a superhuman, Christ? It is, therefore, plausible to 
assume that the blasphemous character was found both in the 
framing of the concept itself and in the avowal of its realisa- 
tion by Jesus in Himself. At any rate Jesus in his answer ac- 
knowledges both that He is the Messiah and that He is so in 
the exalted Son-of-God sense. His words were on this view a 
confession of faith as well as a claim to office. That He at- 
tached the highest conceivable meaning to the claim He is 
asked to own, appears from the prophecy added: “Ye shall 
see the Son-of-Man sitting at the right hand of the Power 
and (Mk. and Matt., not Lk.) coming with (Matt. ‘upon’) 
the clouds of heaven.’ Both these ideas, that of session at 
the right hand of God, and that of coming with the theophanic 
clouds, furnish an authentic interpretation of Jesus’ under- 
standing of the nature and reach of the sonship confessed by 
Him. It is true, He does not repeat the phrase “Son of God” 
in his answer so as to link directly to it the two high predicates 
named. But there was a sufficient reason for the substitution 
of “Son-of-Man” for “‘Son of God” at this moment without 
any intention of disavowing the former as too high and stamp- 
ing the latter as of lower import. Jesus obviously wished to — 
declare before his judges that in the future the relation be- 
tween them and Himself would be reversed: He would then 
be the Judge and they would be the accused. To express this a 
reference to the Son-of-Man and his coming with the clouds 
of heaven was the appropriate form. Luke very clearly brings 
out that he understands the compound phrase “the Christ, the 
Son of God” in the climacteric sense above indicated (so high 
a Christ as to reach up to sonship from God), for he separates 
the two parts: first the Sanhedrists say, “If thou art the Christ, 
tell us’’; Jesus answers this with the declaration that the Son- 
of-Man will from now on sit at the right hand of the power 
of God; then, by means of ody, the further question is at- 
tached: “Art thou then the Son of God?” Here “the Son of 


THE SON OF GOD 177 


God’ obviously means “the Christ who will sit at the right hand 
of the power of God.” ® 

In the next place we examine the testimony borne by the 
disciples of Jesus in the Gospels. Into the memorable confes- 
sion at Czsarea Philippi the sonship of Jesus enters only in 
Matthew’s account of the episode. According to Matthew 
Peter said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 
Mark has: ““Thou art the Christ.” Luke: “The Christ of 
God.” Possibly this fuller version in Matthew is not inde- 
pendent of his rendering of what happened on a previous oc- 


® Brandt, Evang. Gesch., pp. 56-62 argues from the later regulation of the 
Mishna (Sanh. VII, 5) that blasphemy can be charged only where there 
is a formal enunciation of the name of Jehovah, to the effect that Jesus 
could not even have been condemned for claiming superhuman sonship, and 
that therefore the entire account of the trial before the Sanhedrin must be 
unhistorical. Johannes Weiss (Das alt. Ev., p. 319) replies to this that the 
procedure of the Sanhedrin can not be measured by such a strict definition, 
since it was not so much a question of condemning Jesus to death after 
a formally correct fashion, but of finding a moral-religious basis for justify- 
ing his denunciation to Pilate as one worthy of death. Holtzmann likewise 
thinks that the Jews were only too ready to overlook legal irregularities for 
the sake of bringing about Jesus’ death (Das. Mess. Bewussts. Jesu, p. 35). 
But both Mark and Matthew imply formal condemnation, and neither indi- 
cates with so much as a word that the Sanhedrists were playing a part in 
the matter. They must have believed to be strictly within the terms of the 
law. It will therefore have to be assumed that the stricter rule found in 
the Mishna had not yet been formulated at that time. 

It may be of interest here to register the grounds assigned by various 
writers for the condemnation of Jesus where the ground of his having laid 
claim to sonship in a superhuman sense is rejected. The following are the 
main opinions on this question: 

1) The most common view: He was condemned because claiming to be 

the Messiah; 

2) Because He claimed future session at the right hand of God; so 
Dalman; 

3) Because of assertion of Messiahship in his desperate plight; so H. 
Holtzmann ; 

4) Because of his saying about the removal of the kingdom of God from 
the Jews, Matt. XXI, 43; so Stark, Prot. Monatsh., 1902, pp. 291-309; 

5) Because of the utterance concerning the destruction of the temple, 
Mk. XIII, 2; XIV, 58; so Wellhausen, who would exscind vss. 61, 62 
in the last-named chapter, and appeals to Mk. XV, 29 and Acts VI, 
13, 14; Das Ev. Marki, pp. 132, 133; 

6) The teaching of Jesus with reference to various things in general; so 
Merx, who finds this in Lk. XXI, 71, after deleting the immediately 
preceding words, “What further need have we of witnesses?”; he thus 
obtains the statement: ‘We have heard him speak ourselves”; Vier 
kan. Evang., Il, p. 478. 

The variation of opinion among these writers on so cardinal a point in 

the life of Jesus is highly significant. 


178 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


casion in which likewise Peter figured prominently, that of 
Jesus’ walking upon the sea, XIV, 28-33. Matthew and Mark 
(VI, 45-51) both relate how Jesus came upon the sea to the boat 
of the disciples, but Matthew’ alone tells about Peter’s attempt 
to meet Jesus on the water... And Matthew alone relates 
that the disciples prostrated themselves before Jesus, saying, 
“Thou art truly the Son of God.’ It is alleged that this 
utterance is unhistorical, not only because of its absence from 
Mark, but palpably so, because Mark speaks of the astonishment 
of the disciples, which he explains from the fact of their hearts 
having been hardened, vss. 51, 52, and that even after the 
miracle of the loaves. According to the plausible exegesis of 
Weiss, the amazement of the disciples is not the amazement of 
utter lack of comprehension; it is rather the amazement of 
dawning apprehension, a sign that the hardening of their 
hearts was now to some extent passing away. The “for” ex- 
plains why now for the first time they were amazed; it was in 
contrast to their having utterly failed to understand (even to be 
amazed at) the sign of the loaves. Thus interpreted, Mark’s 
account, while less full than Matthew’s, in no wise contradicts 
the latter, but leaves room for what the latter has in addition. 
But whatever may be thought of this harmonizing proposal, it 
may be safely assumed that the Evangelist Mark intends to 
make the lack of comprehension refer to something beyond mere 
Messiahship. Whatever the historical appraisal of the facts by 
criticism may be, at any rate, if we take the Evangelist Mark 
at his word, there was on this earlier occasion a complex of 
fact involving the supra-human nature of Jesus. And abso- 
lutely certain this is as regards Matthew. The recognition of 
this is of decisive importance for understanding the mind of 
Matthew with reference to the Cesarea-Philippi episode of 
Ch. XVI. The name “Son of God” can not in the Evangelist’s 


7 Luke has no reference to this event at all. John has, VI, 16-21. 

7@ Zahn, Ev. d. Matt., p. 512, observes that Matthew does not use Anta 
like a@u#v (as Luke sometimes does), and that therefore it does not consti- 
tute a separate asseveration, but belongs adverbially to «¢ ; the proper ren- 
dering then would not be “truly thou art,” but “thou art truly,” and this 
would presuppose that the conviction was not new in itself, but had been 
newly confirmed by what had happened. 


THE SON OF GOD 179 


opinion have borne a lower meaning on the second occasion 
than on the first. In the earlier passage the nature of the mir- 
acle by which the confession was called forth, followed by an 
act of worship, indicates how the sonship of Jesus was under- 
stood. It was our Lord’s marvellous power over the forces of 
nature, able to draw even Peter within the sphere of its opera- 
tion, that made the disciples exclaim as they did. And the 
miracle was not a specifically Messianic miracle, it was a direct 
manifestation of superhuman character. The disciples through 
it catch a vision for a moment of this character of Jesus as 
such, apart from its reflexion in the Messiahship. This appears 
from the form the exclamation assumes: Séedv vidg ef. They 
recognize Jesus as Son in his relation to God. The article be- 
fore “Son” is omitted, which could not have been done had 
the phrase been intended as a Messianic title, for the Messiah 
is 6 vidg tov Seov. And for the same reason the genitive 
“of God” has. the emphatic first place: “Of God truly thou 
art a Son.” As Zahn strikingly observes: “They declare not 
who Jesus is, but what kind of a Person Jesus is. The ques- 
tion of VIII, 27, ‘What manner of man is this, that even the 
winds and the sea obey. Him?’ here receives its answer, not, of 
course, after the manner of a theological formula, but in the 
unreflected expression of an overwhelming experience.” This 
motands got odtos likewise is peculiar to Matthew, and 
therefore takes its rightful place by the side of the passages 
in Ch. XIV and XVI.° 

In respect of momentary disassociation from the idea of Mes- 
siahship the witness of Ch. XIV stands even higher than the 
famous confession of Czsarea Philippi. But it has supreme 
value also through its bearing upon the latter. It is true, the 
Messiahship and the sonship are here linked together. If there 
were no reference to the Messiahship here, then there would 
be an irreconcilable conflict between the version of Matthew on 
the one hand, and that of Mark and Luke on the other. As it 
is there is none. Only, for reasons which we can not discover, 
Mark and Luke record only part of the confession as it is re- 


8 Mk. and Lk. have tié dpa oiréc gore, But tic can also have the same 
qualitative meaning. Cp. Zahn in loco. 


180 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


corded by Matthew. We must not, however, from a harmoniz- 
ing motive interpret the words “the Son of the living God” as 
meant by Matthew for a mere further specification of “‘the 
Christ.”” This would be, to be sure, a facile way of harmoniz- 
ing, but it comes into conflict with the plain indications of the 
context in Matthew itself. These indications have been ad- 
mirably pointed out by Zahn, and it will be sufficient for our 
purpose to restate them briefly. J the first place, Peter’s con- 
fession is represented as the result of a strictly supernatural rev- 
elation given to him by God; not “flesh and blood,” i.e., not 
man, not human nature, has led him to make it, but the Father 
of Jesus, and more particularly the Father in heaven, which 
stresses the revelation-origin of Peter’s conviction still more. 
The verb “has revealed” reminds of XI, 27, where it is said that 
only the Father knows the Son, and where the context repre- 
sents it as the exclusive work of the Father to reveal the Son. 
If this reminiscence is not accidental, we shall have to infer that 
Jesus finds here a concrete instance of such revelation by the 
Father of his unique sonship. Peter is one of the simple and 
unwise to whom it is the Father’s good pleasure to reveal the 
truth concerning Jesus. The phrase “my Father,’ instead of 
“God,” also suggests that the disclosure made to Peter had 
reference to the paternal and filial relationship between God 
and Jesus. Evenif the higher sense of a super-Messianic son- 
ship were not required by the resemblance of the train of 
thought to that of Ch. XI, we should still have to say that, 
considering our passage by itself, the mere fact of Jesus’ Mes- 
siahship could scarcely have been represented by Jesus as re- 
quiring, in the case of Peter, for its attainment and acceptance 
such a strictly supernatural revelation. The ordinary means 
of self-disclosure during his long association with Peter would 
have sufficed for that. Secondly, the antithesis between “Son- 
of-Man” in the question of vs. 13 and “Son of the living God” 
in vs. 16 can scarcely have any other meaning than to raise 
Jesus’ sonship above the purely human sphere. Peter must 
mean to say that the Son-of-Man is more than the Son-of-Man, 
is indeed none other than the Son of God. But, if Son of God 
were taken as a mere Messianic title, it could not, as such, form 
any contrast to Son-of-Man, for Son-of-Man is in itself a 


THE SON OF GOD 181 


very high Messianic title. Thirdly, the characterisation of God 
as “the Living God” points to a sonship transcending Messiah- 
ship. It is true, “the Living God” is a not uncommon designa- 
tion of God, almost a semi-proper name. When used in a 
strong asseveration where the emphasis rests on the truthful- 
ness of the assertion, it need be no more than a means of height- 
ening the latter, and no reflection need be implied upon the 
inherent meaning of the name. But in the present case it is not 
the veracity of what Peter says that comes under consideration. 
Rather the content of the character ascribed to Jesus is the 
main point, and for defining this the naming of God in this 
peculiar way can not be without significance. In a question of 
the sonship of Jesus the fact of his being the Son of “the Liv- 
ing God” must add something to the import of the sonship. 
It would seem to imply that in and through Jesus God has 
manifested Himself as the God who imparts life, and that in the 
manifestation and transmission of this life of God Jesus has 
shown Himself the veritable Son of God, partaking of the life 
and life-giving character of God Himself. If thus the son- 
ship is associated, not merely with a mission from God, but 
with the essential character of God as possessing life, then it 
transcends Messiahship, and appears as the outcome, not of the 
will merely, but of the nature of God, and correspondingly can 
not but be descriptive of nature in the case of Jesus. Fourthly, 
the pointed correspondence between the confession of Peter and 
the avowal made by Jesus in answer to Peter requires that in 
the former the ascription of an element of supernaturalness 
shall be recognized. Our Lord declares: “I, on my part, say 
unto thee.’’ The Greek brings this out very strongly through 
the use of the pronoun: xdya dé cou Aya. Now the im- 
port of this avowal, made with reference to Peter, centers in 
this, that our Lord contrasts the natural name of Peter, Simon 
bar-Jonah, with a higher name, Kepha, a name which puts him 
into an altogether new rubric, as the rock upon which the super- 
natural structure of the Church is to be raised.* This perfectly 


9 Zahn’s interpretation in so far differs from the one given above, that 
he finds in the contrast between Simon bar-Jonah and Petros a symbol of 
the contrast between “flesh and blood” and apokalypsis as the source of the 
knowledge spoken of, Das Ev. d. Mait., p. 530. 


182 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


corresponds to the fact that Peter had substituted for a purely 
official interpretation of Jesus in which at best the element of 
supernatural origin and nature remained in the background an 
interpretation in which this latter element was stressed. Jesus 
adds that upon Simon bar-Jonah, changed into Kepha, Petros, 
Petra, He will build his Church. Now as a matter of fact the 
Church is not built upon the Messiahship of Jesus alone, but 
has through the ages confessed Jesus as the divine Son of God 
by origin and nature. 

In the annunciation of the nativity and the supernatural 
birth of Jesus out of the Virgin Mary the sonship of Jesus with 
reference to God likewise enters. In Matthew’s record, it is 
true, this does not lie on the surface as clearly as in Luke’s. 
In the former the supernaturalness of the birth, to the exclu- 
sion of all human paternity, is affirmed in vss. 18 and 20. But 
more than this is implied, and that not merely in the background 
of the Evangelist’s mind: the very words of the annunciation 
in vs, 21 suggest the Deity of the child in the form of equiva- 
lence to Jehovah. Of course the appointment of the name 
Jesus, “Jehovah is salvation,” does not of itself affirm this, for 
as before under the Old Covenant, so now the name might have 
been borne by the child as a standing witness of the fact that 
Jehovah is salvation, without thereby meaning that the child is 
Jehovah. In reality, however, the context here makes the sit- 
uation far more concrete than would be the case under general 
circumstances. When after the appointment of a name mean- 
ing ““Jehovah is salvation” there is added to this the statement, 
“For it is he that shall save his people from their sins,” no 
other interpretation remains possible than that Jesus will func- 
tion as Jehovah and that this is conveyed by his name. Still 
even this does not go to the extent of putting the close identifi- 
cation with God in the form of Jesus’ being “the Son of 
God.” It is not rash to infer, however, that this latter lay 
actually in the mind of the Evangelist since it is hard to tell 
how he could have conceived the identification in “saving” with 
Jehovah on any other principle than that of sonship. 

It is different in Luke’s account of the annunciation to Mary 
by Gabriel. Here it is foretold that the child shall be called 


THE SON OF GOD 183 


“the Son of the Most High,” I, 32, and “the Son of God,” vs. 
35. And this is stated in such a way as to imply that the birth 
is due to the,paternity of God working through the Holy 
Spirit. It is true, in vs. 32 the two things of Mary’s bearing a 
son and his being called “the Son of the Most High” are simply 
joined together without causal explanation of the one from the 
other. The language does not compel the inference that the 
sonship will be derived from the mode of the birth. But this 
could not be stated at the beginning, because in the first greet- 
ing the mode of birth is not yet defined as supernatural, it 
simply being stated, that she has found grace with God, and 
will conceive and bearason. In vs. 35, on the other hand, after 
in the meanwhile the specific announcement of the supernatural 
conception has been introduced, the divine sonship of the child 
is immediately brought into connection with this by means of 
dtd : “Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and power of the Most 
High shall overshadow thee, wherefore also the holy thing that 
is born [or “being begotten’’| shall be called Son of God.” 
The nature of the connection ought to be sharply observed: the 
angel does not say, that, because conceived of the Holy Spirit, 
He shall be the Son of God, but that for the reason stated He 
shall be called Son of God. The name will be consciously as- 
sociated with the manner of birth. In the other case “Son of 
God” might have a purely Messianic sense: because supernat- 
urally born He shall be the Messiah; as it is, “Son of God” 
has the nativistic sense: people shall give Him the name “Son 
of God” in view of his conception from the Holy Spirit. And 
in the light of vs. 35 there is every reason to take the name in 
vs. 32 in the same sense, so far as the intent of the angel is 
concerned, although here the connection could not as yet be 
drawn by Mary. Nativistic sonship and Messianic kingship are 
clearly enough distinguished in the statement: ‘This one shall 
be great, and shall be called a Son of the Most High, . . . and 
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father 
David, and he shall be king over the house of Jacob forever, 
and of his Kingdom there shall be no end.” The implication, 
therefore, is clearly that God can be called the Father of Jesus, 
and Jesus can be called the Son of God so far as the origin 


184 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


of his human nature is concerned because this origin was due 
to a direct paternal act on the part of God. True, it is not said. 
in so many words that God begets Jesus. Nevertheless the 
words, “Holy Spirit’? and “Power of the Most High” amount 
to virtually this very thing. The Holy Spirit comes under 
consideration as the Power of God, that through which God 
works; what takes place, therefore, is meant as an act of God. 
This becomes still more plain, if we notice the language used: 
the word émuoxdJew, “overshadow” suggests that the power 
of God comes in the form of a cloud, for not of power 
in general, but only of power embodied in the form of a 
cloud, can such a figure be used. This is further corroborated 
by the account of the transfiguration, where we find the same 
word “overshadow” in all the Synoptics, and that distinctly in 
conjunction with the cloud: “a cloud overshadowed them.” 
But this cloud in the transfiguration is a cloud indicating the 
presence of God; it is the theophanic cloud. In two ways this 
appears: Matthew describes it as a luminous cloud, which 
makes us think of the O..T. theophanic cloud, and all the Syn- 
optics state that the voice came out of the cloud, marking the 
cloud as the special vehicle of God’s revealing presence. We 
have also the testimony of II Peter I, 17, which describes the 
voice of God on the mount of transfiguration as a voice borne 
by the Majestic Glory, that is, a voice proceeding from the 
Shekinah. To say that the conception was accompanied by 
a theophany does not involve that there was an appearance of 
God in human form, nor that any physical act of begetting 
took place; the theophanic presence, as just shown, is precisely 
the same as at the transfiguration, where no shape nor form was 
seen. The representation is at the farthest remove from those 
of pagan mythology. It simply serves to characterize the act 
of impregnation as in the strictest and most direct sense an act 
of God, however accomplished, an act of God in virtue of 
which Jesus could be properly called “Son of God.” *° 


10 Cp. Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 49: “The conception of 
Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary differs from all other conceptions 
of children by their mothers in that there was no human father. The place 
of the human father was taken by God Himself, not that God appeared in 
theophany in human form to beget the child after the analogy of the 


THE SON OF GOD 185 


This nativistic sonship seems to be referred to in one other 
connection in the Gospel of Luke. When in the genealogy, 
ITT, 38, Adam is called “the Son of God,” this is evidently done 
to bring out the analogy between him and Jesus. As Adam had 
no human father, and in this respect differed from all the per- 
sons forming the intermediate links in the genealogy, being a 
product of the creative act of God, so Christ, “the Last Adam,” 
was supernaturally called into being (as to his human nature) 
by God Himself. Perhaps the thought of this analogy in the 
mind of Luke furnished the reason for his so placing the geneal- 
ogy as to make it precede immediately the account of the temp- 
tation of “the Last Adam,” which continues the parallelism to 
the fact that both alike were proved and tempted. The differ- 
ence, however, continues to exist, that Adam was created whilst 
the production of the human nature of Jesus was a begetting, 
since the continuity with the human race through the mother 
had to be reckoned with. 

The divine voice from heaven at the baptism and the trans- 
figuration constitutes the highest witness borne to Jesus’ son- 
ship, apart from his self-testimony. In connection with the 
baptism there is only this difference in the Synoptical record, 
that Mark and Luke bring the words in the form of an allocu- 
tion to Jesus, whereas Matthew has the statement in the third 
person, “This 1s my beloved Son.” ‘There is a difference, how- 
ever, between the voice at the baptism and that at the trans- 
figuration consisting in this, that on the later occasion, accord- 
ing to the three Synoptics, the words “hear Him” were added. 
This addition probably had something to do with the proximity 
of the passion at the time of the transfiguration, which made it 


mythologies of the ethnic religions: but that God in theophany in an 
extraordinary way, unrevealed to us, and without violation of the laws of 
maternity, impregnates the Virgin Mary with the holy seed. The words of 
the Angel imply a theophanic presence; for though it might be urged that 
the coming of the Spirit upon her was an invisible coming, after the anal- 
ogy of many passages of the O. T., yet the parallel statement that the 
divine power overshadowed her cannot be So interpreted. For it not only 
in itself represents that the divine power covered her with a shadow; but 
this is to be thought of after the uniform usage of Scripture as a bright 
cloud of glory hovering over her, resting upon her, or enveloping her with 
a halo of divinity in the moment when the divine energy enabled her to 
conceive the child Jesus.” Cp. also Plummer, Comm. on Luke, p. 24. 


186 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


appropriate that Jesus should be accredited afresh of God, and 
with increased emphasis, in view of the coming events, which 
might have seemed to call his claims into question. ‘The only 
difference here, comparing the Synoptics among themselves, is 
that Matthew contains the “in whom I am well pleased” re- 
peated from the baptism. The “chosen” of Luke is not a real 
difference from the “beloved” in Matthew and Mark, for it 
probably has adjectival force. At any rate these differences are 
negligible so far as the determination of the import of the son- 
ship of Jesus is concerned. For the latter the only thing com- 
ing under consideration is the relationship between the two 
clauses “my beloved Son” and “in whom I am well pleased.” 
It is clear that on the rendering “I am well pleased” the second 
clause amounts to little more than a tautology, no matter 
whether the former be understood of mere Messianic sonship or 
of super-Messianic, ontological sonship. The “being well 
pleased” does not come up to the “beloved’’ of the first clause, 
is in fact an anti-climax. This difficulty disappears immedi- 
ately, so soon as evddxyoa is rendered by “I have chosen.” 
This is not a rendering of last resort, but one of perfect natural- 
ness and not unfrequent occurrence. The aorist means “on 
whom my good-pleasure has settled.’”’** The sentence then 
comes to stand: “This is my beloved Son, whom I have chosen 
in my good pleasure.’’ But this sentence still admits of a two- 
fold construction, depending on whether the first fact stated is 
taken as the result or the cause of the second fact expressed. 
On the former view we obtain: This is my beloved Messianic 
Son, because for this office my choice has fallen on Him. This 
construction makes the sonship Messianic: it speaks of the Mes- 
sianic dignity of Jesus as a result of the divine election. On 
the other view the result is as follows: This is my beloved Son, 
on whom on that account my choice for the Messiahship has 
fallen. There are two considerations inclining us to adopt the 
latter construction. The one is the occurrence of the divine 
declaration on the two high occasions of the gospel-history. 


11 Cp. for instances Zahn, Das Ev. d. Matth., p. 144, note 66. Especially 
I Macc. X, 47 is instructive: “Having the choice between Alexander’ and 
Demetrius, they chose Alexander” (evddxyoav év ’AAefavdpy). 


THE SON OF GOD 187 


If even in other situations the super-official sonship is revealed 
and recognized in the record as lying back of the Messianic 
sonship, we should feel it as an inadequacy were it not here 
given its legitimate place. And, secondly, had Messiahship 
been expressed in the first clause under the figure of sonship, 
then the more natural mode of expressing the cause of this 
Messianic sonship would have been to employ for this likewise 
the same figure in terms of generation: This is my Messianic 
Son whom I have begotten.*” Of course, in the abstract there 
would remain the possibility that the sonship spoken of in the 
first clause were not superhuman, ontological sonship, but 
ethico-religious sonship, and that the declaration is to the effect 
that God out of the many sons bearing this character had se- 
lected Jesus for the Messianic office. Such an interpretation 
might suit the modern view taken of the life of Jesus were it 
not for the fact that on this view itself Jesus was altogether 
unique in the possession of such ethico-religious sonship, it 
being the very purpose of his Messianic election to communicate 
it to others. What is to be the end of the Messianic appoint- 
ment can not at the same time have been regarded as an ante- 
cedent state of fact realized already in others. The inter- 
pretation adopted above will appear all the more plausible, 
if the full force of ayannrds, “beloved” in Biblical Greek 
is recognized. In all cases where this adjective occurs with 
vids it transcends the general meaning of “beloved,” so as 
to signify beloved in a unique sense. Hence in the LXX it 
stands as the rendering for the Hebrew “ben jachid,” “only 
son,’ and can even become synonymous with “monogenes.” 
A sonship so unique does not permit us to restrict its mean- 
ing to that of a bare figure for Messiahship. The voice 
declares two things: first Jesus is in a peculiar sense, and 
antecedently to his calling, the Son of God; secondly, the di- 
vine good pleasure has come to rest upon Him for the Mes- 
sianic appointment. And the former clause explains the second. 
The passage belongs in the small group of statements which 


12 This observation is confirmed by the variant text in Lk. III, 22, of cod. 
D, the It. and of Church Fathers, who read: “Thou art my beloved Son; 
this day have I begotten thee” (in dependence on Ps. II), Zahn inclines to 
adopting this text. 


188 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


give us a glimpse of the relation existing between our Lord’s 
Deity and his redemptive function in the incarnate state. It is 
the name Son of God which holds these two aspects of his 
life, the eternal and the temporal one, together in a common 
designation. 

Among the others who ascribe divine sonship to Jesus, we 
may also count the Evangelists. True, it might be said, that 
their opinion and way of speaking is immaterial for dealing 
with the self-consciousness of Jesus. From a methodical point 
of view this is undoubtedly so. And yet it is unnatural to over- 
look that the Evangelists wrote with the historical material be- 
fore them, and that, however much they might have felt the in- 
fluence of the Christological development in the early Church, 
they could scarcely have conceived and propagated an opinion 
that was entirely unsupported by or utterly at variance with the 
historical data. It ought to throw some weight into the scale 
how high or how low an idea they associate with the divine son- 
ship of the Lord. Fortunately we can quote unquestionable 
testimony in this respect from within the critical ranks them- 
selves. It is coming to be more and more acknowledged that 
all the Evangelists, not only John, but likewise the Synoptics, 
understand the name Son of God in a higher than the purely 
Messianic sense which they connect with Jesus’ nature. The 
Evangelists had no other belief in this matter than was the 
common belief among those for whom in the first instance they 
wrote. Wrede has made this superabundantly plain for Mark, 
and if it be said that Wrede had a special motive, connected 
with his theory, for maintaining it, we may quote a well-known 
New Testament scholar, for whom no such motive existed, 
Johannes Weiss, who says: “Even as Paul regards Christ as a 
divine being, and places all emphasis on his descent from 
heaven, and no emphasis on the mode of his birth, so our Evan- 
gelist (Mark) does not deem it necessary to make any refer- 
ence to the birth of Jesus.” And, a little later: ““He is for Mark 
the Son of God, who has free disposal of the power and omnis- 
cience of God.’ ** It is true, neither Wrede nor Weiss con- 
siders this as historically reliable evidence of the actual facts in 


18 Joh. Weiss, Das dlteste Ev., pp. 43, 49. 


THE SON OF GOD 189 


the life of Jesus. To them it is a bare question of the literary 
and doctrinal standpoint of these writers. From our standpoint 
we would submit that such a standpoint on the part of the Evan- 
gelists nor of the public for which they wrote admits of easy 
explanation without credence in the facts. Mark has written — 
his high Christology into the very first sentence of his Gospel: 
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”’ 

Having finished our induction of the Synoptical data bear- 
ing on the divine sonship of Jesus, we may be permitted to 
put the question in what relation, if any, the several references 
and meanings of the title stand to one another. This is not a 
question of bare fact, as though for the constructive relation- 
ship the same direct witness could be gathered from the sources 
as we found to be available for the matter-of-fact applications 
themselves. What we have studied is the reality of life, 
which, even though it be supernatural life, does not lose the 
flexible, plastic character pertaining to life everywhere. No 
rigid adherence to any single sense of the title is observable 
anywhere, not even where its reach transcends the limits of a 
time-circumscribed state. There is in the Synoptics scarcely a 
passage revealing the intra-divine (trinitarian) sonship in 
isolation. In by far the most cases the one reference passes 
over into the other, and it is sometimes hard to tell where the 
one stops and the other begins. Such deliverances as the mono- 
logue of Matt. XI, 27, and the voices of the baptism and the 
transfiguration, while almost blinding our vision with the light 
of Deity, mediate this vision for us through the perspective in 
which the specifically divine appears as subservient to the offi- 
cially Messianic. The Son, who alone knows the Father, and 
who is known of the Father alone, and who speaks of these 
things in sublime language, is none the less the Son to whom 
all things were delivered of the Father. The One on whom 
the good pleasure of the Father came to rest is also the One 
who was antecedently the beloved Son. The last messenger 
sent to the wicked husbandmen is sent last for no other reason 
than that He represented to the Father, apart from his mission, 
the highest who could be sent. These cases ought to caution 
us against the inference that the writer of a passage, because 


190 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


he singles out a single aspect of Jesus’ sonship, was on that 
account ignorant of or opposed to every other construction of 
the idea. The four aspects distinguished do not represent four 
successive stages in the development of the Christology of the 
early Church. They are mutually coherent aspects of the same 
fundamental fact of Jesus’ divine sonship. 

In order to make clear to ourselves this interrelation in de- 
tail, we must draw a careful distinction between the sequence in 
the sphere of being and the sequence in the sphere of revela- 
tion. It is obvious on the surface that the sequence need not, 
in fact can not, be the same in both spheres. That which is the 
outcome of the higher naturally appears in history as the me- 
dium for the disclosure of that higher thing, and consequently 
appears later in time. Beginning, then, with the order in the 
sphere of being, we notice that the highest thing is the pre-tem- 
poral, pre-mundane sonship of the Second Person of the Trin- 
ity with reference to the First. This is called sonship, and 
that not only in the Fourth Gospel, but likewise in the Synop- 
tics, so that the trinitarian dogma need not introduce any for- 
eign, metaphysical terminology for expressing this part of its 
content, but can remain in touch with the simple Gospel-form 
of statement itself. The importance of this first fact can not 
be overestimated. It is absolutely essential to the Deity of our 
Lord, because it places Him, jointly with the Father, above the 
relativity of all created being and development, not merely so 
far as his Person, but likewise so far as supreme intra-divine 
relation, connoted by his name, is concerned. To put it point- 
edly, and not shunning even the semblance of paradox, we 
might say that this aspect of the sonship would have existed 
had there been no world, no man, no religion, no redemption, 
no Messiahship at all. 

Secondly, out of this develops, and to it is adjusted, the 
Messianic sonship. Our Lord’s eternal sonship qualifies Him ~ 
for filling the office of Messiah. This office is such, it implies 
such a relation of close affiliation with God, such an acting as 
the absolute representative of God, such a profound communion 
of life and purpose with God, that only a Son in the highest 
sense can adequately fill the office. Thus the office calls for a 


THE SON OF GOD 191 


Son. But the reverse is also true: the sonship calls for a pecul- 
larly high type of Messiahship. If the high office seeks a high 
person, the high Person likewise requires that the office shall 
be made commensurable with his character and dignity. This 
results in imparting to the Messiahship a filial character, and 
so renders the name Son of God appropriate in a Messianic 
sense. It will be seen from this that the Messianic sonship is 
not really a thing separated from the eternal sonship. Jesus 
is not Son in two senses that have nothing to do with each 
other. The Messianic sonship is simply the eternal sonship 
carried into a definite historical situation. 

In the third place, the Messiahship involves the assumption 
by the Messiah of a human nature, his introduction into the 
human race, as a member of the same. Had this Messiah been 
any other than the eternal Son, or any other than a filial Mes- 
siah, he might have been born after some other fashion than 
through direct supernatural begetting on the part of God, 
through the Holy Spirit, and without human paternity. But, 
being what He is, it was eminently appropriate that also in the 
mode of his introduction into the human race, the mode of 
filiation should be followed, that He should be born as even in 
his human nature literally the Son of God, thus having his 
human birth in full harmony with the general character of his 
Messianic and his eternal filial relation to God. This again, 
therefore, is not a third sonship, not something new, but simply 
the carrying through of the first and second aspects into the 
definite issue of the incarnation.** 

Finally, in the fourth place, the incarnation involves that the 
incarnate Messiah shall lead a truly human life. In such a life 


14 From the above it will be seen that there is truth.in the close connec- 
tion established between the virgin-birth of our Lord and his Deity. It is, 
however, a mistake to suspend the Deity on the virgin-birth as its ultimate 
source or reason. The impossibility of this appears by observing that the 
virgin-birth has reference to the human nature of our Lord, and cannot, 
therefore, without confusion of the natures, be the cause of Deity. Being 
an event in time, it can not be productive of something eternal. To sus- 
pend on it the Deity, would lead to a lowering of the idea of Deity itself. 
Yet, the feeling is quite correct that those who deny the supernatural 
birth are not apt to affirm the Deity of our Lord and his eternal existence 
with God before the world. The combination of affirming the latter, and 
denying the former, is a theological oddity, not a normally sane position. 


192 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


there is, of necessity, a religious and moral relation to God. 
As man, Jesus had religion, the only perfect religion that ever 
existed on earth since the days of paradise, and He likewise 
possessed a perfect ethical life. But, being in three antecedent 
senses the Son of God, it became fitting that in Him this re- 
ligious and moral relation to God should receive a marked filial 
character, that not only in the general sense in which every 
child of God calls God his Father he should do so, but that 
even into this, where there exists otherwise such a close analogy 
with the experience of all believers, there should enter some- 
thing unique, because the principle carried through in the three 
preceding relations requires application here also. In prayer 
to God and in obedience to God Jesus could call God Father as 
no one else can ever do, the reason for this being not only his 
possession of a perfect religious and moral experience, but 
chiefly that his religious and moral sonship was inevitably 
colored by the consciousness of sonship in the preceding senses. 
Even here, then, there is not added a new fourth thing inde- 
pendently of the first, second and third, but the new thing that 
results, results from the carrying through of those preceding 
aspects of his sonship into a new peculiar situation. 

Such is the order in the sphere of existence. . Next we con- 
sider the sequence as it appears in the sphere of revelation. 
Here not the eternal sonship, but the Messianic sonship, comes. 
first. In fact, during the Old Testament period this stands 
alone, and is not as yet brought into clear connection with the 
other. While divine predicates are given to the Messiah, as, 
for instance, in Isa. IX, yet these are not associated with his 
being the Son of God. The basis of the Messianic sonship lies 
in Il Sam. VII, where God promises that He will be a father 
to the Davidic king, will discipline him when necessary, but 
not finally reject him forever. Then in Psa. LXXXIX this 
is worked out so as to represent the Davidic king as the first- 
born Son of God, the highest among the kings of the earth. 
In Psa. II this conception receives a wider range, since here 
it is seen to involve nothing less than inheritance of God’s rule 
over the world. In course of time revelation could not fail to 
draw the inference that a world-ruler in such a comprehensive 


THE SON OF GOD 193 


sense must needs be super-human. In Psa. CX the terms are 
even stronger, speaking of session at the right hand of God, but 
here the idea of sonship does not enter. But neither in the 
former, nor in the latter Psalm is the affirmation of Deity ex- 
plicitly made. In Psa. II, 7 the appointment to this world-rule, 
expressed in terms of sonship, is still represented as an event in 
time, therefore as Messiahship, for Jehovah says: ‘Thou art 
my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”’ We can not here in- 
vestigate in what relation this sonship of the theocratic King 
stands to the sonship attributed in the Old Testament to the 
nation of Israel, whether the Messianic idea is in its origin 
independent of the latter, or connected with it. At any rate in 
point of time the national application precedes the Messianic 
one.*° Next we meet with the sonship of the Messiah in the 
Apokalyptic literature. In En. CV, 2, God says: “I and my 
Son.” InIV Ezr. VII, 28, God speaks of the Messiah as “my 
Son, the Anointed”; in XIII, 32, 37, 52; XIV, 9, He is simply 
called “my son.” In the last-named writing there seems to be 
an allusion to Psa. II, because the mountain upon which the 
Messiah comes down and which the nations attack is Mount 
Zion. It should be observed that the Apocalyptic writings 
named seem to be precisely the ones among this class of litera- 
ture, that have the highest Christology, investing the Messiah 
most distinctly with supernatural attributes and functions, per- 
haps even to the point of ascribing to Him preexistence. It is 
promised to the seer in IV Ezr. that he will be taken up from 
among men and made to dwell henceforth with God’s Son, 
until the times shall have been fulfilled.*® 

Coming to the Gospels, we find that immediately at the 
nativity the Messianic and the nativistic sonship are associated. 
In Lk. I, 32, reference to the former is at least the most 


15 Some writers maintain that in the Psalter passages Psalms II and 
LXXXIX, the King of Zion, called the Son of God, appears only as an 
emblem of the nation of Israel; cp. Daiman, Die Worte Jesu, I, p. 220. See 
the present writer’s Eschatology of the Psalter in The Princeton Theological 
Review, 1920, pp. 29-35. 

16 The passage in Enoch where God says “I and my Son” occurs in a 
piece declared by some writers an interpolation; in that case the way of 
speaking might be due to later Christian influence; cp. Dalman, Die Worte 
Jesu, I, 221. 


194 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


natural interpretation so far as the understanding of Mary 
was concerned, for she will have naturally connected the name 
“Son of the Most High” with that which was up to that point 
known to her of sonship of the Coming One, and that doubt- 
less was the Messianic connotation. Then, as we have seen, 
in vs. 35 the nativistic idea is joined to this. It is worthy of 
observation, however, that in all the revelations that cluster 
around the nativity the name “Son of God” in the purely Mes- 
sianic sense does not occur. Subsequently in the Gospels also 
revelation refrains from using “the Son of God” independently 
in Messianic connections. It is always meant as something 
intimately connected with Jesus’ Messiahship, to be sure, but 
still as something in reality lying back of the latter. It would 
be far from the truth to assert that “Son of God’’ has in the 
Synoptics a simply Messianic and not an ontological sense. 
This may be true of the appraisal of Jesus by others, but in 
the innermost circle of revelation it is not so. In fact here 
one would in vain look for the separate Messianic title. It 
appears only in combination with the ontological sense, and 
that in such a way as to give the major stress to the latter. 
It should further be noted that there is a difference in sequence 
observable beween the situation where the disclosure comes 
direct from the mind of God, and the situation where it 
passes through the apprehension or confession of the disciple. 
At the baptism and the transfiguration the ontological son- 
ship comes first, and, as something resulting the Messianic 
status is added. The same is true where the joint-statement of 
both facts, the intra-divine and the historically Messianic one, 
issues from the mouth of Jesus Himself, as in the monologue 
of Matt. XI, 27. In such cases the sequence indicated is the 
only natural one, because, if one may so speak, that is the order 
of the divine experience from which the revelation springs. 
On the other hand, where the disclosure comes through the ut- 
terance of man, as is the case in the confession of Peter near 
Ceesarea Philippi, the order is with equal naturalness reversed : 
“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” for this 
sequence corresponded to the experience of Peter, who by the 
Father in heaven had had the Messiahship supernaturally dis- 


THE SON OF GOD 195 


closed to him in such a way as to see the divine sonship in one 
and the same perspective with it as its indispensable back- 
ground. Peter, having no experiential knowledge of the mode 
of existence within the divine Being, was raised to the first 
apprehension of it through observing its presence and operation 
in the Messianic work. 


Cuapter XII 
THE SON OF GOD (Continued) 
THE SONSHIP OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 


THE signs of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel were recorded in 
order that the readers might “believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
the Son of God,” XX, 30. It is, therefore, preéminently the 
Gospel of the Savior’s sonship, and ought to be studied for the 
very specific purpose of determining what this conception meant 
both in his own utterances and in the apprehension of the 
Evangelist. So long as the philosophico-theological interpreta- 
tion, in distinction from the acceptance of it as history, pre- 
vailed, a very high, indeed the highest ontological, view was 
taken by the critical exegetes of the names of Jesus in the Gos- 
pel, and in this respect by a curious agreement the critics of 
that school found themselves at one with the doctrine of the 
Church, with this difference always, that the things which the 
Church in the simplicity of her faith took and accepted from the 
lips of Jesus, the critics explained from a source of speculation, 
opened up much later than the historical life of Jesus, and send- 
ing forth a doctrine that would have been utterly strange and 
uncongenial to his mind could it have been submitted to Him. 
Over against this high appraisal of the content of teaching, 
philosophically considered, joined to a thorough disbelief as 
regards its historicity, stood the attitude of the Apologetes, who 
defended both the content of the teaching and its provenience, 
more or less directly, from the historical Jesus. At the same 
time these apologetic writers, who have done so much to vindi- 
cate the orthodox views of the Church in regard to Apostolic 
origin and historical trustworthiness of the Gospel, reveal a 
tendency to part company with the church-exegesis in certain 


respects. The point in which this most distinctly appears con- 
196 


THE SON OF GOD 197 


cerns the assignment of the names of the Savior to the several 
states of his existence. The trinitarian construction of the 
Church has always felt that such designations as “the Logos,” 
“the Son,” “the Only begotten Son” were intended by the Gos- 
pel to apply to the pre-incarnate, i.e., the pre-temporal, pre- 
mundane state of the Person of whom they are predicated. 
The Church has found in the Fourth Gospel the main, if not 
the exclusive, source for its teaching on the deep things of God. 
On the other hand, it was but human in the apologetes of the 
historical character of the Gospel to endeavor to approximate 
its content as much as possible to the plane of the Synoptical 
teaching of and about Jesus, for the simple reason that thus 
to their minds one of the chief obstacles to its historicity could 
be removed. It was held, therefore, critically speaking, even in 
orthodox circles, that the characteristic names given above 
should be derived from the incarnation, so that through this 
event, and not apart from or prior to it, the Evangelist meant to 
call Jesus the Logos, the Son, the Monogenes. These, it was 
believed, were titles that had currency and meaning in the 
earthly, redemptive sphere only, not in the transcendental, eter- 
nal world from which Christ originated. He was neither 
Logos, nor Son, nor Monogenes from eternity, but became what 
these names stand for through his entrance into the world of 
time. Or, where this is not affirmed of all three of these names, 
it is at least maintained with regard to one or two of them. 
It should be noted, however, that the denial of these names to 
the Christ in his preéxistent state by no means, in the view of 
such writers, is equivalent to the denial of the preexistence as 
such. Only the subject who bore the names in his earthly 
appearance did not bear them in his preceding state of eter- 
nity. To name Him in that the Evangelist meant his readers to 
employ some other term. According to Zahn, e.g., who makes 
all three of the names temporal names, the Evangelist had no 
other designation at his disposal than that Jesus, previous to 
the incarnation, was simply “God.” This tendency to tem- 
poralize the great names has further received reenforcement 
from the Ritschlian quarter. Here all that savors of the spec- 
ulative and metaphysical is removed from Christian teach- 


198 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


ing. Harnack’s exegesis of the Gospel with its sharp distinc- 
tion between the speculatively colored Prologue and the eth- 
ically colored Gospel, and his refusal to recognize the Prologue 
as in any sense a programme for the ideas in the Gospel, clearly 
reveals the influence of this Ritschlian motive. For such as 
still set store by the great theological doctrines, for which the 
Fourth Gospel has preéminently furnished the.basis, the tend- 
ency referred to may easily seem fraught with danger. One 
may be inclined to feel that the historical character of the 
document has been saved at the expense of its theological im- 
portance. While encouraged to maintain his confidence in 
the actual derivation of this body of teaching from the lips 
of Jesus, yet somehow in the apologetic process, which has 
buttressed this confidence, the former richness and distinctive- 
ness of the teaching seem to have been lost to such an extent 
as to supply no longer any appreciable increase to our store of 
knowledge garnered from the Synoptics.* 

Of the three titles named our concern here is exclusively with 
the second and third, the titles of “Son” and “Only Begotten.” 
The Logos-title admittedly forms no part of the vocabulary of 
Jesus.?. As to the Messianic “Son of God,” if one were to be- 
lieve the charge that the Evangelist has removed the historical 
Jesus entirely out of the reach of actuality into the realm of 
philosophical transcendence, this title would be expected to 
have been submerged entirely. So far from this being the case, 
we find it represented on several occasions, on one of which it 


1 The author may here refer to his articles on, The Range of the Logos- 
Title in the Fourth Gospel, Princeton Theol. Review, Vol. XI, 1913, pp. 
365-419, 557-602, where the facts and their bearing on the Gospel-Christol- 
ogy are given in detail. 

2 Nearest to the application to Himself of the Logos-idea by Jesus, and 
actually divined here by some, is the statement in the passage X, 34-36. 
Here a contrast is drawn between those to whom the word of God merely 
came, and Him who was sanctified and sent into the world as the personal 
bearer of the word of God. If, however, an allusion to the Logos-concept 
were intended, this would have been scarcely clothed in the form of so 
subtle an allusion. Grill, Unters. iiber d. Entst. des. v. Ev., thinks that the 
allusion is there, not, of course, as an idea of Jesus, but as in the mind of 
the Evangelist, p. 34. Harnack, on the other hand, finds in this free un- 
speculative handling of the term “word of God” clear evidence for the cor- 
rectness of his thesis, that the body of the Gospel, in distinction from 
the Dp: is not framed upor the Logos-idea, Z. f. Th. u. K., 1892, 
pp. 2 R 


THE SON OF GOD 199 


appears in the most pointed form based on Jesus’ manhood 
alone. In Chap. X, 34-36, our Lord expressly vindicates 
his right in virtue of his Messianic calling to bear the name in 
question: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 
If He called them gods unto whom the word of God came... . 
say ye of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the 
world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am Son of God.” 
The reference is to Psa. LX XXII, where the judges of the 
theocracy, or if we may believe critical expositors of the Psalter, 
the pagan gods, are addressed by Jehovah as “gods.” * “God 
standeth in the congregation of El; he judges among the 
Elohim (vss. 1 and 6): I said, Ye are Elohim, and all of you 
sons of Eljon.” Our Lord construes this peculiar address to 
magistrates as “gods” to have been due to their having been 
made recipients of the word of God, possibly the divine word 
of appointment installing them in this position as representa- 
tives of the authority of God.* They therefore were pro- 
nounced gods in view of their office. Now on the same ground 
of appointment and comprehensive investment with the divine 
sovereignty Jesus bases his claim to the title “Son of God.” 
The sanctifying is placed by Him before the “sending into the 
world,” because it preceded the latter, and a suggestion of pre- 
existence accompanies the statement, reminding us that the 
highest in point of nature can be joined to that which is purely 
official. Our Lord, therefore, does not here take into account 
his Deity and relation to God antecedently to his Messianic 
functioning. He stakes the issue wholly on his temporal ap- 
pointment. The reason for this fact, which at first may seem 
strange in view of the other transcendent claims elsewhere in 
the Gospel made by Jesus, is not far to seek. The charge of 
blasphemy had been brought against Him as a man: “For a 
good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because 
‘thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (vs. 33). The argu- 


3 Cp. Cheyne, Bampton Lectures, p. 120. This exegesis is not that of 
Jesus, for He proceeds on the assumption that those addressed were “men.” 

4Cp. Ex. XXI, 6. 

5 Cp. in the immediate context vs. 30: “I and the Father are one.” It 
is plain that to the Evangelist there was no contradictoriness between the 
two statements. 


200 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


ment is from analogy: the judges were entitled to the name 
in that official sense, and on the same ground is Jesus, and 
there was no blasphemy even on the basis of the Jews’ own 
accusation. But the argument is not wholly from analogy; 
it is also @ fortiori: there was a wide difference between 
those to whom merely the word of God came and Him 
whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world: Jesus’ 
Messiahship carries with itself an all-comprehensive authority : 
it involved consecration in heaven and mission into the world. 
Still this a fortiori element in the argumentation does not 
affect the common ground of delegated power on which the 
two cases compared are put. It is a question of more and 
less, but still a question of more or less in the same sphere. 
Some have found interwoven with this a still further argu- 
ment a majori ad minus: if they could rightly be called gods, 
I, who have greater mission, can certainly call myself at least 
“the Son of God.” On this view of the matter Jesus would 
not, at least not for the purpose of argument, lay claim here to 
the name “God.” To us it seems, however, that the distinction 
between God and Son of God is not animadverted upon. In the 
Psalm “gods” and “sons of the Most High” are used in paral- 
lelism. And in the context of Jesus’ discourse it is not merely 
divine sonship that He affirms of Himself, but likewise one- 
ness with the Father, the being of the Father in Him, his being 
in the Father. Obviously in the intent of the discourse being 
the Son of God includes being God.* 

The passage commented upon is, however, by no means the 
only reference to the Messianic sonship of Jesus in the Fourth 
Gospel. There are quite a number of statements in which 
Jesus speaks of Himself as “Son” with a connotation of Mes- 
sianic dependence on and subordination to the Father. Nor 
does the name “Son” appear in such connections without special 
significance; it is evidently introduced for the very purpose of 
expressing the thought referred to. According to XIII, 3, the 
Father gives all things into the hand of the Son; according to 
V, 19, 20, the Son can do nothing of Himself but what he sees 
the Father doing . . . for the Father loves the Son and shows 


®So Zahn, Comm. d. Ev. des Joh., p. 463. 


THE SON OF GOD 201 


Him all things that He Himself does, and will show Him still 
greater works; according to V, 26, the Son has it as a gift 
from the Father to carry life in Himself; according to V, 43, 
the Son came in the Father’s name; according to VI, 57, the 
Son lives because of the Father in the same way as the be- 
liever lives because of eating Christ; according to VIII, 34, 35, 
the Son gua Son has authority to set free the bondservants of 
sin, and possesses the right to abide in the house for ever; 
according to X, 17, 18, although Jesus has power to lay down 
his life and to take it again, yet, on the other hand, He does so 
in obedience to a commandment received from the Father ; ac- 
cording to X, 25, He does his works in his Father’s name; 
according to XII, 49, all his saying and speaking rests on a 
commandment which the Father that sent Him gave unto Him; 
according to XIV, 28, the Father is greater than the Son;‘ 
according to XIV, 30, 31, his going forth to meet the Prince of 
the World is out of obedience to his Father’s commandments ; 
according to XV, 10, the Son has kept the Father’s command- 
ments; in XX, 17, even the risen Christ speaks of the Father 
as his “Father and his God.” It would be rash, however, to 
assert that in all these instances the Messianic concept ex- 
haustively accounts for the turn given the expression. Ob- 
viously the subject who makes these utterances speaks out of 
a consciousness at the same time transcending and including the 
temporal Messianic relationship. This is precisely the pecu- 
liarity of the whole representation that in it the ontological son- 
ship and the Messianic sonship are most closely interwoven. In 
VI, 69, Peter’s confession has the same form and sequence as 
in Matt. XVI, and for the reasons there stated points to a 
sonship that is climacteric of the Messiahship. In VIII, 16, 18, 
23, there is a clear interweaving between the ideas of father- 
hood and sonship and that of Jesus’ being of another world, of 
his being the absolute equivalent of God, so that to know Him 
is to know the Father also. Mutual knowledge as in Matt. XI, 
27, is said to exist between the Father and the Son in X, 15; 
XIV, 6, 7, 9, 11. The Father appears as the source of the 


7 According to X, 29, the Father is greater than all; here, however, the 
“ail’ does not include the Son. 


202 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Messianic commission in its all-comprehensiveness, and the pro- 
venience of the Son from a higher world is associated with this. 
The crowning statement is that of X, 30: “I and my Father are 
One,” and that in a context, as we have seen, which stakes 
the title to sonship on the Messianic commission. The inbeing 
of believers in Jesus, joined to his own inbeing in the Father 
and the Father’s inbeing in them, XIV, 20; XVII, 22-24, the 
God-mysticism, as it has been called, as the consummation of 
the Christ-mysticism of Paul, and in fact an anticipation of the 
latter, certainly passes beyond the highest potentialities of Mes- 
sianic appurtenance as such, and can find its explanation only 
in the super-official, supernaturalistic sphere. On what has been 
tabulated above a sonship higher than and anterior to the Mes- 
sianic sonship must be postulated, and it can be fully demon- 
strated, as we shall presently see, from what the Gospel (both 
Jesus and Evangelist) teaches in regard to the Monogenes- 
sonship and the preéxistence. 

According to some expositors, however, this mysterious and 
transcendent plus that shines through the Messianic avowals 
needs no metaphysics for explanation. The possession and in- 
fluence of the Spirit are believed fully to account for it. It is” 
believed to be simply the extension into the subsequent life of 
Jesus of the relationship first established in the incarnation, and 
confirmed in the baptism. This construction is the positive 
counterpart to the negation that the names Son and Only Be- 
gotten reach back into the preéxistent state. Among recent 
writers Lutgert has made this view the basis for his entire con- 
struction of the Johannine Christology.* He assimilates in this 
point the Synoptics and John. In both equally Jesus is re- 
garded the Son of God because of his possession of the Spirit. 
He connects this pneumatic sonship, not only with the few in- 
stances where Jesus in the Fourth Gospel speaks of the Spirit as 
his endowment, but also with the far more numerous passages 
which attribute to Him a seeing and hearing of the things of 
God and a descent from heaven. Usually such statements, es- 


8 Liitgert, Die Johann. Christol., in Beitr. z. Ford. Christl. Theol., pp. 1- 
130 Seoccaty pp. 4-67: “Der Sohn Gottes und der Ursprung Jesu aus dem 
immel.” 


THE SON OF GOD 203 


pecially those of the latter class, are brought into connection 
with the preexistence of the Son. In his preéxistent state Jesus 
saw and heard the heavenly things; it was from heaven He 
came down (anthropomorphically speaking) into the flesh. 
According to Lttgert the statements mean that Jesus has his 
origin continually through the Spirit in the sphere of heaven. 
Lutgert, while not denying the preéxistence theoretically, yet 
as a matter of fact, relates practically all the passages on which 
the doctrine of the preexistence is based to the Spirit-fed life 
of Jesus on earth, so that, but for the explicit teaching of the 
Prologue, hardly a necessity would remain for affirming it. It 
can not be admitted that Lutgert has made this construction 
plausible. Nowhere, not even in the Synoptics, is the possession 
of the Holy Spirit represented as constituting Jesus the Son 
of God. There is no connection of a causative nature traced, 
as we have shown at an earlier point, between the Spirit-bap- 
tism and the sonship. Not through receiving the Spirit did He 
become the Son, on the contrary, because He was the Son, He 
was baptized with the Spirit. The Pauline soteriological 
analogy is instructive here: while born xatva avedua Christians 
receive the Spirit because they are sons of God, Gal. IV, 6, 28. 
In Jno. I, 33, 34 the descent of the Spirit is not regarded by 
the Baptist as the productive source of Jesus’ sonship, but only 
as the source of knowledge concerning it. Objectively the re- 
ception of the Spirit is connected only with the (future) act of 
bestowing the baptism of the Spirit on others: “On whom thou 
shalt see the Spirit descending . . . Heit is who baptizeth with 
the Holy Spirit.” On Lutgert’s view vs. 34b ought to have 
read, connecting directly with 33a, “On whom thou shalt see 
the Spirit descending . . . He is the Son of God.” It is true 
that the Fourth Gospel knows of a present hearing and seeing 
of the things of God on the part of Jesus, and brings this into 
significant connection with his Messianic sonship. And on 
general principles, though this is nowhere explicitly stated, we 
may conceive of these processes as mediated by the Spirit, I, 
51; V, 19, 20, 30. But, even if in this the function of the 
Spirit be recognized, none of these statements yields the specific 
idea, that such receptivity of Jesus with regard to the influence 


204 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


of the Spirit makes Him the Son of God. And these passages 
by no means cover all that the Gospel has to teach concerning 
the seeing and hearing of heavenly things by Jesus. The fallacy 
of Litgert’s argument lie in his assumption that the unique 
knowledge of Jesus can have only one source; if, therefore, a 
present seeing and hearing are attributed to Him, then all 
seeing and hearing must be assigned to the present life. But 
the temporal seeing and hearing do not exclude nor render 
superfluous the eternal seeing and hearing in the state of pre- 
existence. In some cases the reference to the preéxistence is 
marked clearly enough either through the different tense or the 
different verb used, or even by explicit statement. In III, 31, 
the subject is described as “the One who comes from heaven” 
(present tense) and the experiences attributed to Him are: 
“He has seen” (perfect tense), and “He did hear” (aorist). 
In VI, 46, the subject is “the One who is from God,” and the 
act is: “He has seen” (perfect tense) : here the uniqueness of 
the vision of God affirmed of Jesus also requires its reference 
to the preéxistence, for the Spirit-communion enjoyed by Jesus 
during his earthly state was not absolutely unique, but only 
differing in degree from that of others. In VIII, 38, there is 
a pointed contrast between the perfect-character of the process 
claimed by Jesus and the aorist-character of that ascribed by 
Him to the Jews. Even more forced than the explanation of 
the time-forms of expression is that attempted of the local 
forms of statement. Because in the case of believers such ex- 
pressions as “‘to be of God,” “to be from above,” pertain to the 
earthly mode of being, therefore, it is held, when the same or 
similar expressions occur of Jesus, they must everywhere in 
his case have the same meaning, and even the strongly local 
descriptions “to have come from God,” “to have descended 
from heaven,” must be kept down to the earthly level. But - 
here also there are characteristic differences between what is 
said of believers and what is said of Jesus. It is never affirmed 
of believers that they have come from God or from above; 
their origin from God is always expressed in the present tense, 
except where the verbs “to be born” and “to be begotten’ are 


THE SON OF GOD | 205 


used, and here the verbs are verbs never employed of Jesus.® 
Here also Lutgert’s argument is ultimately based on the postu- 
late that a twofold explanation of the heavenly character or 
provenience of Jesus can not have lain in the mind of the Evan- 
gelist. Because in IIT, 34, the fact of Jesus’ speaking the words 
of God is based on “He giveth not the Spirit with measure,” 
therefore the statement “He has seen and did hear” in vs. 32 
must likewise be wholly explainable from the possession of the 
Spirit. And, because in VI, 63, the quality of Jesus as the 
bread of life is brought in connection with the influence of the 
Spirit, therefore all the strong expressions used in the context 
about his coming down from heaven (vss. 33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 
51, 58, 62) must be interpreted without recurring upon the 
eternity-factor. To our view, on the other hand, the peculiarity 
of the Fourth Gospel lies to a large extent in this, that it com- 
bines and closely interweaves the several factors that together 
make up the supernatural in Jesus. 

The full significance of the intra-divine, trinitarian sonship, 
as taught in the Gospel, can not be satisfactorily set forth until 
after a thorough examination of the name Monogenes and the 
question of the preexistence. And since these cannot be prop- 
erly treated except in connection with the nativistic sonship, 
we reserve them till that point. Before that we deal briefly 
with the one other aspect of the sonship not yet taken into con- 
sideration, the so-called ethico-religious sonship. Much is made 
of this by all interpreters who discover a difference between 
the Christology of the Prologue and that of the body of the 
Gospel. Harnack is the foremost defender of this position. 
According to him the difference lies, not merely in the mode of 
construction, the Prologue employing the deductive process, that 
from the philosophical conception of the Logos downward, 
whilst the Gospel employs the inductive-historical process, that 
from the phenomena in the life of Jesus upward, but there is 
also a real difference observable in the content of the doctrine 
itself. The Christ in the body of the Gospel is said to be to 
a far less extent, if at all, a metaphysical Christ. His sonship 


9Except in the newer reading of I, 13 O¢ éyevviphy, 


206 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


and all the other elements connected with his Person, such as 
life, light, truth, etc., have quite a different shade of meaning 
in the sequel than the Prologue started out to impart to them. 
With reference to the sonship in particular it is pointed out that 
this is in the Gospel put upon an ethico-religious basis. Jesus is 
the Son in virtue of an ethical and religious union with God 
and not because of any ontological mode of existence in the 
eternal sphere. The sonship originates and perpetuates itself in 
the sphere of spiritual fellowship between God and Jesus. 
Litgert, finding the core of the sonship in the control of Jesus 
by the Spirit, comes to virtually the same conclusion: “As the 
Son He is obedient to God, and as the One that is obedient to 
God He is the Son,” although in the order of precedence he at 
least would put the former before the latter. But this simply 
means that in the reciprocal ethical process between God and 
Jesus the action on the Father’s side precedes; that on the side 
of the Son it follows: “The act of Jesus which performs the 
will of God does not spring from Jesus Himself, but He per- 
forms it, because God shows and gives it to Him; such is the 
manner in which God makes Him his Son by giving Him his 
work and his word.” *° 

The best way of testing this theory and sifting the elements 
of truth in it from those of error consists in tabulating as 
simply as possible the actual facts registered by the Gospel. 
In doing this it will have to be remembered that the ethical son- 
ship cannot be cleanly separated from the Messianic relation. 
It is precisely in the latter that room for the interplay of re- 
ligious and ethical reactions is created. Consequently it will be 
hard to tell whether the mention of the sonship and the father- 
hood entering into certain statements is due to the ethical and 
religious communion between Jesus and God alone or, at least 
in part, perhaps chiefly, to the Messianic status that calls 
for ethico-religious conduct on the part of Him who is the © 
Son, i.e., the Messiah. It goes without saying that where the 
Messianic idea flows in the sonship can not be proven to con- 
sist in the ethico-religious attitude or disposition of Jesus, far 
less to have originated from the latter. But, even were it pos- 


10 Litgert, op. cit., p. 23. 


THE SON OF GOD 207 


sible to isolate the ethico-religious, and have it in pure solu- 
tion, the conclusion would not be permissible that it gave rise 
to or produced the sonship. All that could be said would be 
that it appeared characteristic of the dignity or privilege of 
sonship of God in the common spiritual sense. The concep- 
tion is strange in itself that moral and religious perfection 
should produce the Messiahship, for to the Messiahship belong 
quite a number of other-complexioned requirements than those 
going with ethical and religious perfection alone. There is in 
this a strong reminiscence of the erstwhile liberal theory about 
the genesis of the Messianic consciousness: because Jesus 
uniquely possessed these perfections, He felt it incumbent upon 
Himself to mediate them unto others, and in that vocation con- 
sisted his Messiahship. It is scarcely necessary at the present 
day to observe that this is a purely imaginary and thoroughly 
unhistorical conception of Messiahship, which in Jesus’ time 
no one could have framed, least of all Jesus Himself. But even 
in regard to the abstractly considered ethico-religious in itself, 
it would be beside all analogy to think that men create their 
divine sonship by being good or pious: the idea everywhere is 
that an antecedently given sonship asserts and evidences itself 
in moral and religious acts. The facts, carefully considered, 
carry in no wise further than has been above indicated. The 
obedience of Jesus is frequently associated with his sonship; 
as Son He keeps the commandments of God, X, 18; XII, 49; 
XIV, 31; XV, 10. Further, the keeping of the command- 
ments is represented as essential to the retaining by Jesus of the 
love of God, XV, 10. In both these respects there exists an 
analogy between the filial relation of Jesus to God and the rela- 
tion of believers to Jesus, XIV, 15, 21, 23; XV, 10. Of 
course, in all this there is no ground for affirming that Jesus 
ascribes an ethico-religious origin to his sonship. The obe- 
dience is in accord with the sonship, but nowhere appears either 
as the essence or the ground of it. When Jesus is said to abide 
in the love of God by keeping his commandments, this is not 
equivalent to saying that He gained the love of God by this 
or became Son through it. Sometimes the idea is that the son- 
ship is proven by ethical conduct, VIII, 39, but this also differs 


208 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


from saying that it sprang from it. The passage most fre- 
quently quoted to substantiate this train of thought is IV, 34: 
“It is my meat to do the will of him that sent me.” In this 
passage, however, there is no specific reference to sonship as 
though the latter grew up, was fed, from doing the will of God. 
The meat is that which sustains the spiritual and vocational life 
of Jesus; that it feeds his sonship is not said. Jesus says not 
even “the will of my Father,” but only “the will of him that 
sent me.” What our Lord means is that the pursuit of his 
Messianic calling is so refreshing and satisfying to Him as 
to render at times the use of physical food unnecessary. He 
does not even affirm that this is so under all circumstances, 
but simply affirms (without the use of the article): “it is 
food,’’ sometimes takes the place of food.** 

The view has been held that according to the Gospel Jesus’ 
ethical relation to God is the form in which his metaphysical 
union with God comes to consciousness.” ‘This is solely based 
on the assumption that for the incarnate Christ there existed 
no other form of knowing his relation to the Father outside the 
ethical form. It would involve a species of kenosis which is 
entirely foreign to the whole trend of the Gospel. Were Jesus 
shut up to this one way of realizing the supreme aspect of his 
union with God, then what would become of his claim to reveal 
the Father comprehensively in virtue of absolute identity with 
the latter? Not only the restriction to the ethical sphere implied 
in this, but also the absorption of all the rich content of the life 
of God by this one particular element in it would reduce the 
claim to extremely modest proportions. 

In conclusion it should be observed that the terminology of 
the Gospel in no wise favors the extreme identification between 
the sonship of Jesus and that of believers which the over- 
stressing of the ethical and religious application of the idea to 
Jesus necessarily carries with itself. With regard to believers 
the characteristic name in John is not viol but réxva. The 
latter, being derived from tixvewy, lays stress upon the nature 
and subjective condition belonging to sonship, less than upon 


11 Cp. Zahn, Das Vierte Ev., in loco. 
12 So Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. N. T. Theol., Il, p. 443. 


THE SON OF GOD 209 


position and status, whereas vidg is the richer, more preg- 
nant term, which has room for both aspects, that of status and 
that of inherent quality. The distinction is not, of course, 
exclusive, although on the whole characteristic. Even where, 
as in I, 12, it is a matter of receiving é£ovala “right” to be- 
come children of God, the gift conferred is described in the 
word réxva, not viol. Jesus on the other hand through faith 
on whom the sonship is obtained, appears not as the véxvov 
but as 6 vids, in which phrase the article, singling Him out 
from all others, will be noted. In the discourse of Chap. VIII, 
21-30, where the status and authority of Jesus in the house of 
God are defined, involving his authority to deal with others on 
the principle of emancipation, yet the result of the act is not de- 
scribed in terms of sonship but of freedom: “If the Son there- 
fore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” Only in vs. 
35: “The servant abideth not in the house for ever, the son 
abideth for ever,’ there may be a case of the naming of those 
who are emancipated sons through coadoption, but certain this 
is not even here, because “‘the son,’’ who abides forever, may 
refer to Jesus; He may intend to contrast with the expulsion 
of the Jewish enemies his own permanent abode in the theoc- 
racy. In I Jno. III, 2, there seems to be an eschatological out- 
look into the future “sonship” of the readers, viz., in the words 
“we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is,” but in 
the address which opens up this future state unto them they 
are called for the present véxyva. Cp. XI, 52; XX, 17. In 
the last passage Jesus places the disciples pointedly on a foot- 
ing with Himself in the possession of God as Father: “I ascend 
unto my Father and your Father,” but even this way of speak- 
ing would not efface the distinction between the two relations, 
for the Father is Father to the véxvoy as well as to the vidg. 
Of course that here, and especially in the Epistles of John, the 
mode of affectionate address, and that in the plural, almost 
made the use of réxva unavoidable ought not to be overlooked 
in this connection. Cp. I Jno. II, 1, 2, 13, 18, 28; III, 7; IV, 
PAR 3 


13 The address of the disciples as masdia by Jesus has no bearing on 
the above question. 


210 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


The question of the presence of the nativistic sonship in John 
involves one of the most difficult exegetical and biblico-theo- 
logical problems. At the outset, in speaking of John, the dis- 
tinction between the frame of the Gospel (including the Pro- 
logue) and the words of Jesus ought to be kept clearly in mind. 
It is one thing to say the Prologue refers or alludes to the . 
supernatural birth of our Lord’s human nature, and an other 
thing to say Jesus in his own discourse speaks of it, or makes 
allusion to it. The solution of the latter problem is intimately 
connected with the meaning and the reference of the term 
Monogenes. If that should relate to the incarnation, then Jesus’ 
characterization of Himself by means of it proves Him aware 
of whatever peculiarity or uniqueness belonged to that event. 
If, on the other hand, it should be found to have no reference 
to the coming into the flesh, in that case a different meaning, 
belonging to an other sphere, being associated with it, the term 
would cease to carry a nativistic interpretation of Jesus’ son- 
ship. For Jesus’ own self-revelation as the Son of God nativis- 
tically the entire issue is staked on this one term. But it is not 
so with the Evangelist, particularly not so in the Prologue. To 
be sure, of him it is likewise true that the reference of the word 
to the incarnation would be decisive for his view of the latter 
as imparting a nativistic aspect (among others) to the Savior’s 
sonship. But the same fact can here be made plausible with- 
out suspending the argument, even to the smallest extent, on 
the technical term Monogenes. The statement I, 13, contains, 
either by implication or explicitly (which of the two depends 
on the reading of the text), the affirmation of the supernatural 
introduction of Jesus into the world. The Evangelist here de- 
scribes the manner of birth of those believing on the name of 
the Logos as a birth “not of bloods (plural), nor of the will of 
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” This on the 
ordinary text-reading, which has at the beginning of vs. 13 
éyevvyjsnoay , “who were born.” But this is such an extraor- 
dinary way of characterizing the birth of believers as to ren- 
der the conclusion well-nigh unavoidable, that the writer in 
penning it must have had his eye on some other extraordi- 
nary birth, the remarkable features of which he found repro- 


THE SON OF GOD 211 


duced, as it were, in the birth of believers. And this analogous, 
archetypal event, in conformity to which he found the birth of 
believers to have been fashioned, could not have been aught else 
than the birth by which the Logos became flesh. Nor does 
this conclusion rest merely on the general impression con- 
veyed by the language of the statement; it is favored, not to 
say demanded, by certain features in the phraseology itself. 
The threefold turn given to the thought of the possible opposite 
to a birth from God, “not of bloods, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man” requires a special motive for its 
use. This special motive can not be found in the desire to 
emphasize the supernaturalness 1m general of the birth of be- 
lievers. For that purpose the mere antithesis of “not of the 
flesh but of God” would have been fully sufficient. The “flesh” 
over against “God” means nature over against super-nature. 
Because in the present case this general form of the antithesis 
did not satisfy him, since he wished to define the precise mode 
of the super-nature involved, he was careful to characterize the 
contrast in a threefold most pointed form: it was a birth with 
which neither “bloods,” nor “‘the will of the flesh,” nor “‘the will 
of man” had anything to do. Again the further specification of 
the denial of entrance of the will of the flesh by denial of any 
influence on the part of the will of man demands notice pre- 
cisely because on the surface it seems redundant. That it adds 
something to the preceding negation may be confidently af- 
firmed. The birth could have been contrary to the flesh, and 
yet this would not of itself have excluded the participation of 
the male in its production after some fashion or other.* That 
to which the Evangelist refers was a birth which was super- 
natural in that specific form that the factor of man did not enter 
into it in any form whatsoever. Moreover the denial of the 
cooperation of blood is clothed in a most unusual form. The 
ordinary contrast is between “flesh and blood” and “God.” * 
In our passage the current compound phrase is separated into its 
two component elements, and of each of these two elements it 
is stated separately that they were not involved in the process. 


14 Cp. Gal. IV, 20. 
15 Cp. Matt. XVI, 17. 


212 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Besides this, the ordinary sequence of the compound phrase is 
reversed; the denial is made with regard to “bloods” first, and 
then with regard to “the will of the flesh.’”’ All this indicates 
that for the writer the main emphasis rests on the exclusion of 
blood from the process of the birth that furnished him with 
the analogy for the birth of believers. While this is clear, it is 
not so easy on the surface to see how the Evangelist could be 
intent upon altogether denying the factor of blood in the be- 
coming flesh of the Logos. The case is so singular that it 
might occasion a degree of temptation to interpret the words as 
affirming a docetic entrance of the Savior into the world with- 
out the medium of generation or conception on the paternal and 
maternal side altogether. This, however, is excluded by the 
several occasions on which the mother of Jesus is mentioned in 
the Gospel, and that not merely as a matter of common belief 
among the Jews, VI, 42, but as a simple statement of fact by 
the writer, IT, 1, 3, 5, 12; XIX, 25. Under these circumstances 
the view of Zahn, that the plural aiudtoyr is chosen on pur- 
pose to deny the presence and operation of more than one blood 
in the birth or begetting, deserves serious consideration. The 
plural aiuara, to be sure, is not unusual, but where occurring 
always bears the sense of “bloodshed,” and never appears where 
the contrast between the creature and God is involved. Strictly 
speaking, for the precise expression of the idea suggested by 
Zahn, the Dual ought to have been employed; “not of two 
bloods,’ but this precision was not available since in the lan- 
guage of the New Testament the Dual has entirely passed out 
of use. Finally the very perceptible stress that is placed in the 
whole statement upon the exclusion of the will-element, an ele- 
ment usually associated with the male side of the process spoken 
of, points to the same conclusion, viz., that the writer wished 
to compare the birth or begetting of believers with an analogon 
in which the male factor played no rdle whatsoever. 

The above reasoning holds true on the basis of the ordinary 
text with its plural verb. Even with that reading adhered to 
the birth of Jesus with the paternity-element eliminated must be 
alluded to by way of implied comparison. The case, however, 
becomes immeasurably stronger if the singular of the verb be 


THE SON OF GOD 213 


adopted as the original text-reading.*® It is only necessary to 
write down the rendering of the passage with this text adopted 
in order to perceive immediately its great significance: “But as 
many as received him to them gave he the right to become 
children of God, even to them that believe on the name of him 
who was born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of 
the will of man, but of God.’ The statement becomes the most 
direct and lucid description of what is called the virgin-birth. 
No plainer language could have been possibly used for the 
purpose. But no matter whether the text be changed or not, 
no matter whether the doctrine in question be found here by 
implication or explicitly, the passage ought to set at rest for ever 
the facile assertion that the virgin-birth is referred to only in 
two of the Gospels. For two, three will have to be substituted. 
Not, as if it were a matter of one more or one less witness: for 
those who believe in the authority of Scripture a single clear- 
spoken testimony ought to be as decisive as many. The im- 
portance of the Johannine evidence lies in this, that in accord 
with the general character of the Fourth Gospel it adds the pro- 
found theological illumination to the mere statement of the 
fact as found in Matthew and Luke. 

We now proceed to ascertain what light is cast upon the son- 
ship of Jesus by the term ‘“Monogenes.” ‘The question is a 
twofold one: it concerns the inherent significance of the word 
and its reference. The word occurs in the Gospel in four pas- 
sages, I, 14, 18; III, 16, 18, and once in I Jno. IV, 9. The 
other N. T. occurrences, none of them Christological, are: Lk. 
Miisr2 Vill, 42: [X, 28; Heb. XI, 17.) \Chere/are instances 
where the second component part of the term loses its force 
so as to make wovoyer7s practically equivalent to wévog. An 
only child can be called monogenes without reflection upon the 
question whether it be the only one the parents have ever pos- 
sessed or brought into the world. A glance at the non-Johan- 
nine, non-Christological references above given makes this 
plain. Perhaps even in such cases the ~yevyg adds a shade 
of tenderness and poignancy of grief on account of loss through 


16 For the contextual, internal, and critical evidence in favor of this read- 
ing cp. Zahn, Das Ev. d. Joh., pp. 72-77. The argument is strong. 


214 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the reflection that the only child was a begotten child, valued 
as the offspring of its parents, without, however, implying that 
there never had been any others. In the Septuagint monogenes 
appears consequently as the translation of “jachid,”’ “only.” 
With reference to parentage there is only one instance of this, 
viz., Judges XI, 34: “she was monogenes to him.” ** In a met- 
aphorical sense it is predicated of the soul, called in the Hebrew 
“Sachid,”’ and in the Greek “monogenes’’; in the latter, of 
course, all force of ~yevyg has been lost, the idea simply being 
that man possesses one soul only, and no more. Monogenes, 
therefore, can be equivalent to ‘“‘only,” so as to exclude all others 
from the same relationship. The important question is, whether 
the attrition of use had so obliterated all feeling for the end- 
ing ~yevyg as to render the term incapable of conveying the 
thought, where desired, that there was not only a single son, 
but that back of his existence there lay also a single begetting. 
For this there is no proof, nor would it be easy from the nature 
of the case to furnish such proof. The etymology of the word 
remained so perspicuous as to keep its original force within the 
limits of resurrection. Evidently the emergency in the Christo- 
logical case for John was of an altogether extraordinary kind, 
and as such required unusual forms of expression. We must, 
therefore, keep open the possibility that monogenes has to teach 
us something about the uniqueness of the provenience of Jesus 
no less than about the uniqueness of his sonship as such. The 
manner of introduction of the word and its adjustment to the 
context in each case alone can here lead to a more or less 
plausible judgment. 

It has been maintained that not only is there no force in- 
herent any longer in the ending of the word, but that also the 
first part “mono” need not be understood numerically at all, it 
having become in certain cases a metaphorical designation for 
one “highly beloved.’’ This would take the ontological, no less 
than the ontogenetic, element out of it. A son could be called 
“monogenes” simply because he was precious to his parents 
without regard to the question whether or not he was the only 


_ 17 The other Greek versions have povoyevi¢ for “jachid” in genealog- 
ical relation elsewhere also, e.g., Aquila in Gen. XXII, 16. 


THE SON OF GOD 215 


child. This contention at first sight seems to be borne out by 
the fact that uovoyerys and ayannrds appear as synonyms in 
the Septuagint. The appearance is deceptive. A careful exami- 
nation of the passages shows that the synonymity occurs only 
where both terms are the rendering of the Hebrew “jachid.”’ To 
carry out the view it would be necessary to ascribe to ‘‘jachid” 
this same metaphorical, non-numerical meaning, or else to 
assume that the translators had obscured the true intent of 
the Hebrew word through reducing it to the qualitative level of 
the adjective “beloved.” Neither of these two suppositions is 
plausible. The fact is rather this, that in such cases dyannrds 
has been raised to the level of wovoyerys with the numerical 
background of uniqueness or exceptionalness retained. “Be- 
loved” in such connections does not signify “beloved as any 
son would be as a matter of course beloved of his parents,” but 
beloved in a special sense, to a special degree. And this is pre- 
cisely the association “jachid’’ frequently carries with itself: 
“Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest,” Gen. 
XXII, 2, 12, 16. The soul is not called monogenes, because it 
is simply precious, but because it is precious in view of its 
uniqueness: a man has but one life to lose. Indeed it may be 
plausibly held that in certain New Testament statements like- 
wise Hyammtds attracts to itself this idea of exceptional love 
on the basis of numerical uniqueness; thus we believe it ought 
to be understood in the voice from heaven at the baptism and 
the transfiguration; Jesus here figures not merely as the pos- 
sessor of the love of God, but as the possessor of the divine love 
in view of his being the only Son of God. In Mk. XII, 6: 
éte Eva elyev, viov ayantdyv the two attributes do not seem 
to be independent of each other; the second derives its 
force from the first: “one son, and therefore beloved, as an 
only son is.” The contention on our part, that there is more 
in the word than the expression of belovedness, is not, of 
course, meant as a denial that this latter element is really pres- 
ent or even emphatically present. What we mean to insist 
upon is that it rests upon the affirmation or implication of nu- 
merical oneness as its basis. In III, 16, 18, the phrase vids 
uovoyerys undoubtedly stresses the unique value of the Son to 


216 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the Father, as embodying a unique degree of belovedness, so 
that it can measure the greatness of God’s love for the kosmos ; 
only the idea finds much stronger expression when monogenes 
is understood to contribute to the effect aimed at by reminding 
of the absolute uniqueness of the Son in his being-relation to 
the Father. If this passage alludes to the history of Abraham’s 
sacrifice of Isaac, as in all probability it does, this will afford 
positive proof of the inclusion in monogenes of “jachid,”’ 
“monos.” 

Monogenes is then at the least the equivalent of monos. We 
have in the foregoing left it an open question, whether in 
the compound adjective the ending ~yev7s. is otiose or not. 
To this point we now return. There is reason to believe that 
the Johannine usage does attach a significance of its own to the 
form -yevyg making up the second part of the word. These 
reasons concern the two occurrences in the Prologue and the 
one intthe First Epistle. They are not directly applicable to 
the use of the term in the mouth of Jesus, III, 16, 18, although, 
of course any conclusion arrived at in regard to the meaning of 
the Evangelist will unavoidably cast its weight into the scale, 
first so far as his understanding of Jesus’ words is concerned, 
and next so far as the actual intent of Jesus Himself is con- 
cerned. And this altogether independently of the question of 
the historicity of Jesus’ discourse in Chap. III. The writer 
‘can not have meant to put less into the term where he records 
Jesus’ use of it than where he introduces it in the Prologue on 
his own account. But the question will have to be decided on 
the basis of the Prologue and the Epistle. The facts are as 
follows: the context in I, 14, speaks of the yevvaoSae either 
of Jesus or of believers in vs. 13, and in vs. 14 yiyvecSae oc- 
curs with reference to the incarnation. Likewise in I Jno. IV, 
9, the process of yevvdoSdu forms the central topic of the pre- 
ceding context besides its playing a prominent role in the 
Epistle as a whole. The proximity of the very idea of beget- 
ting or being born in both these cases suffices to create a 
strong presumption in favor of the significance of -yevyjg. To 
this must be added, that in both I, 14, and I, 18, the idea of 
endowment by derivation seems to be alluded to. In vs. 14 the 


THE SON OF GOD aye 


glory beheld in Jesus is described as a ddfa Gs povoyervods 
mapa matpds. We take this not as a comparison (“a glory 
such as any only begotten son would derive from his father’), 
but as a statement of correspondence between what was seen in 
Jesus and what might be expected in the Only begotten Son 
from the divine Father.** IIapa is not to be construed with the 
-yevns in uovoyevods but with the implied idea of receiving 
(so Zahn) or coming from (so Godet) the Father. Two rea- 
sons, therefore, are mentioned for determining the standard of 
the glory of Christ, first, that it is a glory of a povoyevys, and 
secondly, that it is a glory received from the Father, or a glory 
of One who came from the Father. Both reasons are stated co- 
ordinately: @¢ ddfav uovoyevots and as ddkav napa matpdc. 
This coordination will be much more natural and complete, if 
in wovoyervys there be felt the same idea of the Son’s being de- 
rived from the Father. The whole, therefore, might be plaus- 
ibly paraphrased as follows: such a glory as the Only begotten 
would have in virtue of his begetting or birth, and such as He 
would derive from the Father. As to I, 18, the variant read- 
ings of duovoyerys vidg and wovoyerns Seds do not differ- 
ently affect the question before us.*? No matter which of 
these two be favored, nor whether on the latter wovoyerys be 
as an adjective construed with Sedg or construed with a sup- 
plied vids, to be coordinated with Seds, or whether it be taken 
as a noun to which Sedg would belong as an adjective (“a di- 
vine Only begotten’”’) it is clear that the ability of the Son to 
declare God, to explain which yovoyevys serves, is not so well 
accounted for by “Only Son’ as by “Only begotten Son.” 
Were one to insist upon “only,” then the explanation would 
have to be sought in this, that an only son has the fulness of 
being, stored up in the father, all to himself, whereas in a case 
of many children it might be conceived as distributed over the 
many, and only partially present in any single child. But even 


18 Godet, very precisely: “Une gloire comme doit étre celle du Fils venant 
d’ aupres du Pére. Cp. particularly his statement about the absence of 
the article before povoyevove¢ and tatpé¢ (against Weiss). Commentary in 
loco. 

19 Cp. Hort, Two Dissertations, 1876, pp. 12-15. 


218 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


this understanding would have for its inevitable, though unex- 
pressed, concomitant the idea of things passing over from the 
parent to the child. But in the latter case yevyg would not 
contribute to the expression of the thought implied. It is cer- 
tainly more natural to give ~yevys its proper force than not. 
The Monogenes can declare God, because He alone through his 
derivation from God possesses the likeness to and acquaintance 
with God required for such a task. In fact, if -uovoyerys 
be directly attached as an adjective to Sedg as its noun, Only- 
begotten God becomes the only possible rendering, “Only-God” 
would yield an impossible thought. To be sure, in case of the 
other constructions (the One who is both Monogenes and God, 
or the divine Only begotten) no such decisive judgment can 
be rendered. Still even in that case to assume reflection upon 
the derivation-idea is just as natural as the opposite. 

If the -yev7yjg in wovoyer7s be given a force and meaning of 
its own, the next question is, whether it should be brought into 
connection with yiyveoSau “to be born” or with yervar “to 
beget.” °° Tevvaiy is usually translation of the Hebrew 
“holid,”’ “to generate,” but occasionally renders “jalad,” ‘“‘to 
give birth.” As in Hebrew the Qal-form is sometimes used of 
the father, so in Greek the male form yevyay sometimes 
of the mother. Both translations, therefore, “Only begotten” 
(English versions) and “Only born’ (Dutch and German ver- 
sions) are equally justified linguistically. Although WNico- 
demus in Jno. III, 4, understands the term from the maternal 
side, this is not decisive e mente Jesu, since He, correcting 
Nicodemus’ misunderstanding, might have made the phrase 
mean “to be begotten again” or “from above.” The First 
Epistle here gives us guidance, at least so far as the under- 
standing of the writer is concerned. To be sure V, 18, leaves 
the matter in doubt, since of the two words Syeyevynuévos 
and CyevvnSéig both may refer to believers, in which case to 


20 Holtzmann, N. T. Theol., II, p. 438, calls the conception “doppel- 
strahlig,” by which he means that -yev7¢ was intend-d to suggest both 
ideas of generation and birth. He finds the same intended equivocalness 
in III, 3, 7, where dvodev yevvaoda: would be made to render double 
service by expressing in one the two meanings of which it is capable “to 
be born anew” and “to be born from above.” 


THE SON OF GOD 219 


have been begotten or to have been born, to be begotten or to 
be born, are equally plausible, or yeyevyvnuévog may refer to 
believers and yevyySeis to Christ, in which case likewise the 
choice between the two renderings remains open for both par- 
ticiples.** But, while this is true of this one passage consid- 
ered by itself, the case becomes different when the teaching of 
the Epistle as a whole, as reflected in some other passages, is 
taken into account. In III, 9, and V, 7, the idea of “begetting” 
is unequivocally expressed, in the latter through the use of the 
participle active aorist, and through the mention of the 
onépua, “the seed” of God in the former. In the light of 
these two references the more or less ambiguous passages II, 
29; IV, 7; V, 4, will have to be interpreted, and finally, V, 18, 
likewise. The idea of a divine generation being thus promi- 
nent in the Epistle, this can not but create a presumption in 
favor of finding the same idea in the Gospel in I, 13, 18, and 
III, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and in the three passages with wovoyer7s. 
1) And the parallelism between believers and Christ pervading 
the Gospel requires us to understand that as believers are “be- 
gotten” of God, so Christ is. The emergence of uovoyer7s in 
both contexts where this idea of the “begetting’”’ of believers 
occurs fixes with tolerable certainty the meaning of the word 
as “Only-begotten.” * 

So far as the traditional interpretation refuses to void the 
~yevys of force, it may be said to rest on a substantial exe- 
getical foundation. More dubious is the correctness of the 
view, likewise with ancient credentials, which places the unique 
begetting in the preéxistent state. The predicate uovoyer7s 


21On the choice between the reference of 6 yevy7téicc to. Christ or to 
the believer the form and sense of the pronoun in the clause “He keepeth 
him” or “himself” depend. If 46 yevvyteic is Christ, then He is the One 
who keeps the believer; if it is the believer, then He keeps himself 
(éavtov). 

22 Everybody, so far as we know, is accustomed to find the pévoc of 
povoyevic in the Son: He is the only one possessing the character and 
bearing the predicate. It seems somewhat strange that God should not 
have come under consideration as the pévoc: “begotten of One.’ That 
would put Jesus’ case and that of believers in Jno. I, 13, on the same foot- 
ing. But that would hardly account for the detailed phraseology. That 
believers in their new birth have sprung from God alone required no such 
circumstantial denials. Besides, évoyevy¢ would have seemed the proper 
word for that. 


220 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


is one of the mainstays of the venerable dogma of the eternal 
generation of the Son by the Father. Nor is this a mere 
musty theologoumenon of the ancient Church. Critics of the 
Tiibingen school, from Baur to Pfleiderer, have stood for the 
same interpretation. On the other hand, the more conserva- 
tive and apologetic exegetes of the Gospel incline towards at- 
taching uwovoyevys to the incarnation. And most of them, 
in doing this, treat the monogenes-character and the sonship 
in general as inseparable. In the abstract the opposite to the 
latter is not inconceivable. The Evangelist might have con- 
ceived of Jesus as “the Son” from eternity, and yet have rep- 
resented Him as becoming wovoyervnsg vids through the in- 
carnation. In view of the close coherence of the several 
parts of the Gospel’s Christological teaching, however, this is 
not likely. Consistency will drive to the position that, if mon- 
ogenes be related to the incarnate state, the sonship as such 
will have to receive the same reference, and the trinitarian con- 
struction of the triad Father, Son, Spirit, as eternally inherent 
in the Godhead might seem in danger of losing its Johannine 
support, which, theologically speaking, might appear a serious 
matter. Still the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest in the 
New Testament on the Fourth Gospel alone. Exegetical con- 
siderations, apart from all dogmatic preference, will have to 
speak the decisive word. Ourselves we do not venture to set- 
tle the question positively, and, while frankly confessing our 
preference for the trinitarian explanation, wish to make a fair 
statement of what in our view may be urged on either side. 
In favor of the eternal generation-reference may be said the 
following: In the first place, the text wovoyerns Sedg in I, 18 
favors it; Oe«dc, according to I, 1, the Logos is in his eternal 
state. If, therefore, the adjective wovoyevys be directly joined 
to Sedg, and the joint-phrase rendered “an only begotten 
God,” i.e., one, who, as God, is only begotten, some such 
process as has been called the eternal generation will be im- 
plied. But it must be remembered that the reading wovoyerns 
Seég is uncertain. And, even if the reading be approved, 
the direct conjunction wovoyeryjs Sedg is not necessary. No 


23 For the names cp. Holtzmann, N. T. Theol. 2, I, p. 436, note 1. 


THE SON OF GOD 221 


objection can on principle be raised against the rendering 
“one who is both wovoyeryg and Sedg. Thus as careful an 
exegete as Zahn proposes to render. The Sedc¢, then would be 
derived from the preéxistent state, the monogenes-character 
from the incarnation. To this, however, it might be objected 
again that then the sequence ought to have been the reverse, 
viz., Sedg uovoyerys as reflecting the chronological order of 
the two qualifications, not only in the reality, but also the 
order of their occurrence in the Prologue, Sedg appearing in 
vs. I and wovoyerys not until vs. 14. No conclusive argu- 
ment can be drawn from the participial clause © Gy éic TOY 
x0Amov tod matpds. A not unnatural way of understanding 
this would be to find in the present tense an expression of 
the timeless, pre-mundane existence of the Son in the bosom of 
the Father, like unto the timelessness of the yy in vs. 1 of the 
Prologue. But, even so understood, this would yield certainty 
only, if 6 dy be construed with vids in movoyerys vids. 
When the other reading is followed, the being in the bosom 
of the Father might be restricted to his Sedc-éivae and not 
extended to his povoyevns-éuvar. Besides this, however, the 
participle 6» is by some exegetes interpreted from the stand- 
point of the Evangelist’s speaking, so as to make the words 
mean: “who is now, through his return to heaven, in the 
bosom of the Father.” On this rendering, of course, every 
reference to the preéxistent state falls away. In the second 
place, the communication of life by the Father to the Son, as 
described in V, 26, and especially the fact that Jesus derives 
this life as Son from the Father as Father, according to VI, 
57, are held to point to an act on the part of the Father in 
which not only the sonship but the life of the Son originates. 
And the Son being eternal, this act must of necessity belong 
to the sphere of eternity. It must antedate the éy adpyy7 with 
which the Prologue opens. To this, however, it might be re- 
plied that neither of the two passages quoted speaks of the 
preexistent One; in both Jesus is believed to refer to Himself 
as incarnate. The sonship, therefore, derived in them from 
the divine paternity might be understood as Messianic son- 
ship. In the context of V, 26, the idea of Messianic sonship 


222 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


certainly occurs, because, as shown above, we have here a son- 
ship involving dependence and subordination. Moreover the 
gift of life to the Son is coupled with the gift of authority to 
the Son, which latter doubtless lies within the Messianic sphere. 
The life also comes under consideration as the source of quick- 
ening at the resurrection, which again seems to characterize it 
as Messianic life. Finally, emphasis is placed in this connec- 
tion on the human nature of Jesus as qualifying Him for the 
execution of judgment. Equally close is the connection be- 
tween the filial life attributed to Jesus and his Messianic work 
in Chap. VI; vs. 57 links together his having been sent by 
the Father and his living because of the Father. He is life 
in the sense in which He gives life. And He gives life as pos- 
sessed of flesh and blood, which those who believe on Him 
must eat and drink, vss. 51, 53. At the same time it will have 
to be recognized that there is another element here in the repre- 
sentation. It is repeatedly stated that as bread Jesus came 
down out of heaven. His possession of life, therefore, also 
is associated with his heavenly origin, and, since this heavenly 
origin presupposes the preeéxistence, it can scarcely be under- 
stood of the incarnation. He must have been bread in heaven, 
must have possessed this life while preéxistent in heaven. This 
opens up the possibility that of this preéxistent life also the 
Son would have been able to say: I have it because of the 
Father, and that in his actual statement of vs. 57 the two rela- 
tions of the Messianic Son and of the preéxistent Son flow 
together. It is not possible here to affirm anything with much 
certainty. Thirdly, the sending of the Son into the world is 
according to ITI, 16, 18; 1 Jno. IV, 9, a sending of the Mon- 
ogenes. ‘Therefore it may be argued Christ is Monogenes 
apart from and previous to his mission. This is certainly the 
only natural interpretation. To be sure, it has been argued 
that as “God sent the prophets” is a common way for express- 
ing the thought that He sent those who are now recognized 
as prophets, in other words that He sent them to be prophets, 
so God sent the Logos into the world in order that in the world 
He might possess the dignity and function of Monogenes 
through the incarnation. Only this does not account for the 
emphasis resting upon the self-sacrifice on the part of God. 


THE SON OF GOD 223 


The idea that God sent his Son, gave his only begotten Son, is 
robbed of its force if the monogenes-filial-character begins 
with the incarnation. Jn the fourth place, all through the 
Fourth Gospel at one and the same time a parallelism and a 
distinction is drawn between the sonship of Jesus and that of 
believers. Now the term Monogenes, calling attention to the 
distinctiveness of Jesus, and not to the similarity, could hardly 
have been employed with reference to the supernatural human 
sonship of the Savior, for in that case, while the resemblance 
and parallelism might have been strikingly accentuated, the 
distinction would have been lost sight of. As we have seen, a 
likeness there is between the two processes, but it remains within 
the sphere of analogy, without entering upon that of identity. 
To say that the peculiar features of the virgin-birth render it 
sufficiently unique to justify the wovoyerys-character hardly 
meets this objection. For from that point of view the re-birth 
of believers, without earthly father and mother, appears still 
more unique and singular. But if wovoyevys has reference 
to an eternal act, terminating upon the preexisting One, it will 
retain its full force, side by side with the analogy existing be- 
tween the sonship of Jesus and of believers. A fifth, and 
somewhat uncommon, argument may be drawn from III, 12. 
Here Jesus distinguishes between the earthly things He has been 
telling Nicodemus, and which the latter did not believe, and 
the heavenly things so far not communicated, and which Nico- 
demus would find it far more difficult to believe. From the 
context it will be seen that “the earthly things’ dwelt upon 
related to the mysterious idea of birth from above. This in 
itself was a sufficiently strange and supernatural event con- 
nected with the Spirit. If then there is set over against this 
something far higher still, and that likewise in the line of 
generation, for otherwise the comparison would lie between 
heterogeneous things, our thought is involuntarily drawn to 
a process of generation in heaven, and this could hardly be 
aught else but the generation of the heavenly Son by the heav- 
enly Father as an act belonging to heaven in the highest tran- 
scendental sense, in view of which the re-birth of believers or 
their birth from heaven above becomes, comparatively speak- 
ing, an earthly thing. In view of it even the virgin-birth might 


224 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


have been called an earthly event without detracting from its 
supernatural character. 

In support of the opposite view, that which connects the 
divine generative act with the incarnation, the following may 
be said: In the first place, the point at which the term Mon- 
ogenes is introduced in the Prologue has been deemed signifi- 
cant as indicating the time when Jesus became the Monogenes. 
This point is at I, 14, immediately after the event “the Word 
became flesh’”’ had been recorded. Nor, we are told, is this se- 
quence purely accidental; a vital nexus between the point of 
introduction and the manner of introduction exists: the be- 
holding of the glory of the Logos, and the recognition of it 
as such a glory as only the Monogenes could receive from the 
Father, could not take place until the incarnation had occurred. 
Before this the Son was Sedg simply, and as Sedg shared 
in the invisibility pertaining to God, vs. 18. Full force, 
however, could be ascribed to this argument from sequence of 
occurrence in the Prologue only, if without dispute the struc- 
ture of the Prologue were acknowledged to be chronological. 
But this very point is a matter of doubt. The reason why 
the Evangelist does not introduce the idea of Monogenes until 
vs. 14 need not be chronological at all. Up to this point he 
is intent upon bringing out the revealing character of the pre- 
existent One. For the expression of this, other concepts than 
that of monogenes-sonship may have appeared to him more 
suitable. Therefore he calls Him the Light and the Word, 
and foregoes calling Him the Son until somewhat later. This 
need not have been, because He was not Monogenes or Son 
previously to the incarnation, but simply because it seemed 
less suitable to represent Him from that point of view until 
then. As a matter of fact, according to quite a number of 
respectable exegetes, John does not first speak in vs. 14 of the 
incarnate One, but several times already in the preceding, as 
when He is represented as being in the world, and not being 
known by the world, of coming to his own, and his own re- 
ceiving Him not, vss. 10, 11. Still it will have to be acknowl- 
edged, that wovoyerys in I, 14, has more force if connected 
with the incarnation than if placed back of it. Of I, 18, on 


THE SON OF GOD 225 


the other hand, this can not be maintained. To be sure, the 
éénynots, the “declaring” of God is the work of the in- 
carnate Christ, and his monogenes-character appears as a quali- 
fication for this. But, whether it is a qualification, which He 
brought with Him out of the preexistent eternal state, or some- 
thing acquired in the moment when He became “flesh” can 
not be determined. The Oeudtys is equally with the mono- 
genes-character a qualification for this task, and the former at 
least is contributed by the external preéxistent state of the 
Logos. Secondly, the context in Chap. I and III favors the 
reference to the supernatural human birth of Jesus because in 
close proximity the new birth, or the birth from above, of 
believers is spoken of, and some analogy between this and the 
monogenes-birth seems to lie in the mind of the writer or 
speaker. Now this analogy would more naturally suggest it- 
self between two supernatural historical acts than between two 
acts of which the one lay in the transcendental, eternal world, 
the other in the sphere of time. The analogy between the ori- 
gin of the human nature of Jesus and the regeneration of be- 
lievers seems to lie more in the sphere of the comparable, be- 
cause both are temporal, and moreover soteric, acts, than an 
analogy between the intra-divine eternal generation and the re- 
birth of believers. 

But the question arises: If Monogenes becomes descriptive 
of an act in time, and if Monogenes and Son are so closely con- 
nected, what support remains in the Fourth Gospel for the 
doctrine of the preéxistence of Jesus as Son in the world of 
eternity? We shall have sharply to note the form of the ques- 
tion as here put. It is not the question whether the Fourth 
Gospel yields ample support for the eternal preéxistence of 
the One who became incarnate, but exclusively the question 
whether in this state He already possessed the character of the 
Son of God. The figment of a purely ideal preéxistence, as 
in his day Beyschlag advocated it, may now safely be consid- 
ered a surmounted view. On all sides it is admitted that the 
Gospel contains the doctrine of a real preéxistence of Jesus. 
The only doubtful point remaining can be: Did He preéxist as 
Son? It seems odd, after all that has been preached by the 


226 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


critical school in regard to the philosophico-theological, tran- 
scendental complexion of the Gospel, that a question like this 
should still be proposable and somewhat difficult to answer. 
But one ought clearly to realize that the strange situation has 
arisen through the bringing down of monogenes to the tempo- 
ral relationship. If it were not for that, there could not be 
the slightest doubt as regards the appurtenance of the sonship 
to the preéxistent state. For an eternal monogenes-character 
carries with it an eternal sonship. A temporal monogenes- 
character, while by no means carrying with it a temporal son- 
ship, yet makes the arguments for an eternal preéxistent son- 
ship more difficult to procure. Apart from this, however, 
certain other considerations explaining the scarcity of direct, 
explicit evidence on the point at issue ought to be taken into ac- 
count. Our Lord speaks throughout from the historical stand- 
point of his incarnate life. He does not speak with the careful 
precision of a theologian. He contents Himself with claim- 
ing present sonship, sonship at the time of speaking, in the 
state of incarnation. He teaches both clearly enough: I am 
the Son and I was preéxistent, but He does not take pains 
to combine the two explicitly and say: I was preéxistent as 
the Son, This we could hardly expect Him todo. The Person 
of the Savior is so unqualifiedly and so emphatically carried 
back by the Gospel into the pre-incarnate state, that it may 
well have appeared superfluous to affirm of the sonship that 
it reaches back into the same state. Further, the Gospel em- 
ploys the title “Son of Man,” as we shall soon have occasion 
to observe, with peculiar reference to the heavenly origin and 
character of Jesus. This has had the result of forcing the 
name “Son of God” out of passages where it might be other- 
wise naturally expected to occur. This ought not, however, to 
be explained to the prejudice of the Gospel’s acceptance of the 
eternal sonship as Harnack seems inclined to do. There is no 
point in “the Son-of-Man” against ‘the Son of God.” 

But, if not directly and explicitly, at least indirectly and 
impliedly the divine sonship is carried back into the preéxistent 
state. We may here argue again from III, 16, 18, as we did 
above with reference to Monogenes. The self-sacrifice of God 


THE SON OF GOD 227 


consisted in this, that He let his Son go out into the world. 
This, therefore, is a sending connected with the Son’s transi- 
tion from his preéxistent into his incarnate life. He was God’s 
Son apart from and previously to that. There is in this re- 
spect a difference between the separableness of an eternal Son 
from a temporal Monogenes, and the separableness of an eter- 
nal Monogenes from a temporal Son. While not compelled by 
the evidence, as we have seen, yet the former is a feasible con- 
struction; the reverse can not be carried through for the 
reason that Monogenes is unthinkable without Son. Further, 
the love of God towards Jesus is in the Fourth Gospel some- 
thing that goes specifically with the paternal and the filial rela- 
tionship. In Chap. XVII, 24 Jesus ascribes to Himself the 
enjoyment of this love “before the foundation of the world.” 
Again in Chap. VI, 46 the words “He that is from God (i.e., 
Jesus) has seen the Father,” are most naturally understood of 
the vision of God Jesus possessed as Son in the preéxistent 
state. It will be noticed the reference is not here to a vision 
of God in general, but to a vision specifically of “the Father.” 
If Jesus in that state saw God as Father, He must have seen 
Him as Son. Once more, the correlative terms Father-Son 
occur as much in contexts where the preéxistence is spoken 
of or approached as in other contexts. There is no semblance 
of effort in the Gospel to avoid them in such connections. 


24 It is different with such a conception as dééa, “glory,’ which does 
not necessarily go with sonship. Hence Chap. XVII, 5; in itself, apart 
from comparison with vs. 24, is not conclusive. The “glory” might be 
considered as a gift bestowed upon the Son at the time of his incarnation. 
It might be the concomitant of the Logos-character, and not specifically 
associated with sonship. 


CuHaprTrer XIIT 
THE SON OF MAN 


In a previous chapter, with purely apologetic intent, we 
touched upon various questions connected with this title. The 
linguistic difficulties encountered in it by many writers, and 
the role played by these in the denial of its historicity, were 
briefly looked into. We endeavored to sketch the possible de- 
velopment of what appeared to be with Daniel a descriptive 
phrase into a formal title. According to our conclusion the 
figure to which it is attached in Dan. VII was from the out- 
set the figure of the Messiah, and did not first, after a more 
or less accidental fashion, through some sort of misunderstand- 
ing, change into a name for the Messiah. Certain Gospel- 
passages in which, it was alleged, the pre-Messianic, gener- 
ically human understanding of the phrase could still be seen 
shining through, were examined, and, with a single exception, 
found to lend no support to that opinion, because the very im- 
port of the passages excluded the interpretation of Son of Man 
as simply man. 

There is, however, one phase of the critical treatment of the 
title that has not yet been touched upon, and which is sup- 
posed by not a few of the most advanced group of critics to 
have an important bearing on the question of the antiquity 
and original import of the phrase. It has been taken in hand 
by the modern “religionsgeschichtliche”’ school. ‘This school is 
fond of finding as much as possible of the biblical material 
cradled in Oriental mythology or in Hellenistic syncretism. 
The application of its methods to the phrase Son of Man inevi- 
tably tends towards carrying back the origin of the title to a 
much higher antiquity than the critics deriving it from a com- 
parison in Daniel had been accustomed to assume. Nor would 


this be merely a question of antiquity. Connected with ancient 
228 


THE SON OF MAN 229 


mythological lore, the phrase would be apt to prove a regular 
name or title, and to bear on that account a far more realistic 
significance than had been attributed it in the interpretation of 
the Danielic usage. As in some other points, so here some 
real good might have resulted from the adoption of a method 
which in the abstract could bode but evil. In reality, however, 
nothing substantial has been produced to prove the ancient ex- 
istence of a pagan Son-of-Man figure, such as might be likely 
to have a real connection with the biblical figure in Daniel or 
the Gospels. On close investigation the appeal to the so-called 
“Urmensch,” “Primal Man,” appears highly problematical. 
Adapa, the son of Ea, is described in Babylonian sources with 
such terms as might at first give the impression of a resem- 
blance at least in name, to the Son of Man. But the phrase in 
question, “Zer amelutv” or “Zer amiluti,’ seems to signify 
rather “Sprout of Mankind” than “Sprout of Man.” The 
“Urmensch” would be naturally a solitary personage, but this 
Adapa is regent over a populous region, dwells in a city and 
associates with bakers. The fact of his being anointed as im- 
plying a degree of likeness to the Messianic figure is beset 
with uncertainty. Somewhat closer to the Gospel delineation 
of the Son of Man would come the feature of Adapa’s ascent 
into heaven, but that is too general an experience in such myth- 
ological environments for much to be built on it. Assyriol- 
ogists further affirm that King Sennacherib called himself 
“Adapa, the incarnate god of a new era.”’ This seems to be 
the language of pagan eschatology grandiloquently applied 
to himself by an Oriental monarch, but others have called in 
doubt the textual basis for this, and at any rate there is nothing 
in it to link it to the Son-of-Man conception. The whole fig- 
ure of Adapa possesses so many, from the biblical standpoint, 
uncongenial characteristics as to render its incorporation into 
Old Testament or Jewish eschatology difficult to conceive. 
Next to Adapa, Marduk, the son, like him, of Ea has been 
represented as a prototype of the Son of Man. Winckler as- 
serts that Ea is designated “the god Man,” and that conse- 
quently his son Marduk must have been considered as “Son of 
Man.” Here again nothing is certain, for the words argued 


230 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


from, “ila amelu”’ can with equal warrant be made to mean 
“the god of mankind.’ And of an application, as distinct from 
mere inference, of the Son-of-Man title to Marduk there is 
no trace. Surely, all this yields a slender enough thread to 
suspend Winckler’s talk about “a Babylonian Christ” upon. 
Nor could Jesus have found warrant in such pseudo-resem- 
blances to call Himself, in imitation of the Savior character of 
Marduk, “the Savior.” In modern interpretations of Hellenism 
we are again confronted with the ‘“Urmensch.” He occurs in 
the Hermetic literature, in Philo, in Gnostic speculation. But 
in all these cases the figure stands for the whole of mankind. It 
symbolizes the old sad story, eternally repeating itself in each 
individual, of man’s lapse into the material. Where a real con- 
nection between this mythical being and the biblical “Son of 
Man” is drawn, as Reitzenstein and others have discovered, it 
appears to have been first established by Christian Gnostics. 
Nor is it probable that this Hellenistic Urmensch should de- 
pend on certain Persian and Indian figures bearing the same 
name, for the meaning and function here are quite different 
from what the myth stands for in Hellenism. In the Persian 
and Indian mythologies the Urmensch serves to explain the 
genesis of the entire present world on the principle that through 
his sacrifice the world comes into being. The thought is cos- 
mical and the myth connected with the cultus in which through 
the sacrifice of a man or animal the renewal of nature in Spring 
is effected. In Hellenism, on the other hand, the myth is an- 
thropological. But in either of its forms, whether there be 
connection or not, the representation has nothing to do and 
no bearing whatever on the picture of Daniel and the title in 
the Gospels. In some of the documents Christ even appears 
separately by the side of this mythical son of man. Elsewhere, 
as in the preaching of the Naassenes, preserved by Hippolytus, 
Christ, as ectypical of the first man, is designated the Son of 
Man.’ 


1The best discussion of the facts concerning the alleged mythological 
antecedents of the “Son of Man” is found in Hertlein, Die Menschensohn- 
Frage im letzten Stadium, 1911, where the literature-references are care- 
fully given. Cp. also the present writer’s review of Hertlein’s book in 
Princ. Theol. Rev., 1912, pp. 324-330. Hertlein falls back upon Daniel, 


THE SON OF MAN 231 


Dismissing all these speculations as of no practical bearing 
on our present purpose, which is to ascertain the meaning Jesus 
Himself put into the title, we proceed to classify the material 
of the Gospels according to the associations which the use of 
it most or least obviously bears on the lips of Jesus. Its fre- 
quency of occurrence, more than eighty times in the Synoptics 
and John combined, calls for notice. Possibly there is some 
connection between this and the fact of its being a title which 
Jesus alone employs of Himself in the Gospels. Its occurrence 
is unevenly distributed, the greater number of instances be- 
longing to the closing period of our Lord’s life, after Cesarea 
Philippi. The sporadic character of the earlier employment 
has led to the attempt at eliminating it from the earlier record, 
the more so since its exclusively apocalyptic import seems easier 
to maintain with the use of it congested towards the end. The 
three methods for attaining this are: 1) the discovery of a 
generic use, spoken of before; 2) the assumption of editorial 
insertion; 3) chronological rearrangement, with or without the 
support of parallels. ‘These early instances in the Synoptics 
are the, following: Mk.TI,. 10; Matt. IX,;'6;. Lk. Vy, 24 
(held to be a case of generic use); Mk. II, 28; Matt. XII, 
8; Lk. VI, 5 (generic use); Lk. VI, 22 (editorial insertion, 
assumed, because Matt. V, 11 has instead “for my sake’) ; 
Lk. VII, 34; Matt. XI, 19 (substitution of the title for the 
pronoun “I’”’); Matt. VIII, 20; Lk. IX, 58 (disarranged 
chronology, the statement occurring in Lk. after Czesarea 


and the symbolic significance of the figure there to the exclusion of all 
Messianic import. Only he has a peculiar view about the dating of Dan. I- 
VII and the role these chapters played in the early Church. They were 
written about the year 70 after Christ; Chap. VII is dated with great pre- 
cision as composed between July, 69 and July, 70. But more interesting 
than this is the writer’s assignment of the fourth beast to the Roman 
power, an exegesis at which the shades of Hengstenberg and Havernick 
must have rejoiced. To be sure, what they derived from supernatural 
prophecy Hertlein makes cotemporaneous with the actual history of the 
fourth beast and its developments. It is all ex eventu.. As to the signifi- 
cance of “Son of Man” in the Gospels, the writer holds that the title can 
teach nothing concerning the real history of Jesus. It only lifts the veil 
from an episode in the history of the production of the Gospel picture. 
Here he falls back upon the hypothesis of Wrede: the use of the title for 
Jesus reflects the consciousness of the cryptic nature of his Messiah- 
ship. Jesus calls Himself “the Son of Man” to conceal his Messianic 


character. 


232 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Philippi) ; Matt. X, 23 (disarranged chronology due to the 
influence of Matthew’s topical scheme of grouping); Matt. 
XII, 32; Lk. XII, 10; Mk. III, 28 (in the former two mis- 
understanding of the generic usage); Matt. XII, 4o (chrono- 
logical displacement, because occurrence of Lk. XI, 30 after 
Czsarea Philippi); Matt. XIII, 37, 41 (said to belong to a 
late period in Jesus’ ministry, transposed owing to Matthew’s 
topical arrangement). 

There is neither need of nor warrant for these critical oper- 
ations. The dependence on the apocalyptic scene in Daniel has 
naturally brought about a preponderance of the eschatological 
references, but since to all intent the phrase is a Messianic title, 
nothing hindered its occasional extension backward into an ear- 
lier stage of the Messianic career. To the popular understand- 
ing this may have caused some wonderment, such as is, per- 
haps, reflected in the phrase “on earth” in Mk. II, 10, but that 
to Jesus’ own feeling a restriction to the heavenly environ- 
ment or the final scenes was not imperative his insistence upon 
the opposite through forgiving sin and working miracles on 
earth shows. Still even here the nature of the sovereignty ex- 
ercised, the forgiving of sin, may be reminiscent of the judg- 
ment-function to be exercised at the end of things. The lord- 
ship over the Sabbath seems to have no particularly eschato- 
logical association. In the case of Lk. VI, 22, on the other 
hand, it may well have been present to the mind of the Speaker, 
for the reference seems to be to the divisions between men and 
men so characteristic of the end; the variant “for my sake” in 
the parallel passage of Matthew rather favors this. In Lk. 
VII, 34, “the Son of man came eating and drinking,” the intro- 
duction of the title may be actually due to avoidance of the 
pointed “I,” but this would be something quite different from 
using it as a mere inoffensive pronoun; it will here have to 
be put on a line with the other instances where speaking of 
Himself in the third person springs from a motive of humil- 
ity in Jesus; only the means used for this is not the employ- 
ment of an idiomatic substitute for the pronoun “T”’; the title, 
kept by the speaker, whom it designates in the third person, 
serves the purpose most admirably. In Matt. X, 23 the 


THE SON OF MAN 233 


eschatological environment (cp. Lk. VI, 22 above) renders 
the introduction eminently fitting, especially since a “coming” 
of the Son of Man is spoken of. Matt. XII, 32 and Lk. XII, 
10, have been disposed of at an earlier point, and a misunder- 
standing of the generic “son of man” as giving rise in the 
translation to the Christological title here was admitted by us 
as perhaps possible, particularly in view of the parallel text in 
Mark, but with the question of chronologically premature 
emergence this had nothing to do. Matt. XII, 40, with its 
reference to the three days and the three nights in the belly of 
the whale, is so thoroughly eschatological as to preclude all sur- 
prise at the appearance of the title in such connection. Finally, 
Matt. XIII, 37, 41, can be easily accounted for by the judgment- 
function spoken of in the latter verse and the prospective 
assimilation of the terminology to this in vs. 37. When the 
investigation of the usage is no longer placed upon the basis 
of literary production, but attached to the objective historicity 
of the events, there are no serious difficulties encountered. 
After all, however, these earlier instances are but a prelude 
to the full, resonant chorus of the later days, when the final 
issue of our Lord’s ministry was felt hastening on to its de- 
cision. These later passages connect the title with the parousia 
of Jesus in power and glory. The mention of the clouds of 
heaven in some of them proves dependence on the scene in 
Daniel. The references are: Mk. VIII, 38 (Lk. IX, 26; 
Rite iii 2 (Matt, XXV,' 303° Lk. XX 27)5 Mk XTVy 
62 (Matt. XXVI, 64); Lk. XXII, 69; Matt. XIII, 41; XVI, 
eygot DIA, 28; Matt. XXIV, 27 (Lk. XVIT, 24) Matt: 
XXIV, 37, 39 (Lk. XVII, 26); Matt. XXIV, 44 (Lk. XII, 
Aarne ce VS 3m CLK XT, 8)5 Lk XVIT) 22,)'303 
XVIII, 8; XXI, 36. There is, however, a significant dif- 
ference between the situation in Daniel and that in these parou- 
sia-predictions. In the latter the “Son of Man” not seldom ap- 
pears as conducting the eschatological judgment. In Daniel 
the judgment belongs to the Ancient of Days, before Whom 
the “Son of Man” is made to appear. Inasmuch as in the 
Enoch-Apokalypse the judging function of the “Son of Man” 
does receive mention, it has been thought that, in part at least, 


234 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the representation of Enoch must have influenced our Lord in 
his depicting of the final scenes. But over against this stands 
the absence in Enoch of a feature made prominent by Jesus, 
as much as the judging, viz., the coming with the clouds of 
heaven, and precisely this feature is found in Daniel. Besides, 
great emphasis is placed in Daniel on the figure described “like 
a man” receiving “dominion and glory, and a kingdom” com- 
prising all the peoples and nations and languages, and destined 
to be of everlasting duration. Between “reigning” and “judg- 
ing’ there is an easy transition in eschatological representa- 
tions, cp. Matt. XIX, 28. The main thing these passages 
have derived from Daniel is, however, the atmosphere of the 
supernatural in which they are steeped. The “coming” is a 
coming theophany-like, a coming out of the other world. Noth- 
ing else in the Gospels has so impressed the stamp of the super- 
natural and the superhuman upon the self-portrayal of Jesus 
as these parousia “Son-of-Man”’ passages. Nothing but the 
avowal of sonship from God in the highest sense can be placed 
by the side of them in this respect. True, our Lord speaks in 
these passages of his future, eschatological coming, of that 
which we call his second coming. 

Another question to be raised in connection with this parou- 
sia group of utterances is whether any perceptible emphasis 
rests in them upon the humanity of Jesus. That such should 
be the case does not necessarily follow from the presence of 
this element in Daniel. When once the description has turned 
into a title, it to a certain extent becomes released from the 
obligation of being intrinsically significant everywhere, al- 
though it does not on that account lose its aptitude for being 
so if occasion requires. It will have to be admitted that in 
general the setting of the passages under review does not par- 
ticularly call for any suggestion of the human nature of the 
Person depicted in the act of his eschatological appearance. 
The reasons usually found for the description “like unto a 
man” in Daniel do not seem naturally transferable to the color- 
ing with which the parousia is depicted by Jesus. It is said 
that in Daniel the description “like a man’ is evoked by the 
desire to make the figure who stands over and for the king- 


THE SON OF MAN 235 


dom of God a vivid contrast in its manlikeness to the bestial 
nature of the figures representing the world-kingdoms, and on 
that account portrayed as beasts ascending from the sea, i.e., 
from the nether-world. This manlike-ness is then most fre- 
quently, with a somewhat modern turn of thought, conceived as 
“humaneness.”’? It is difficult to escape from the impression 
that a contrast between the beasts and the One like a man is 
actually intended in Daniel. The question remains, however, 
whether this contrast should be placed after such a semi-modern 
fashion in the sphere of humaneness. Of that at least there 
seems to be no indication in the sequel of the account in Daniel, 
nor would this fit particularly into the tone and tenor of the 
prophecy. Probably the contrast will have to be found else- 
where with closer adherence to the antique way of looking at 
things. The beasts are bestial in a far more profound and 
realistic sense than through their lacking in “humaneness.”’ 
The spirit of the nether-world, from which the beasts are 
seen ascending, is one of enmity against God and of blasphemy. 
The vision itself interprets the bestiality in this direction. The 
lion having eagle’s wings is made to stand upon two feet as a 
man, and a man’s heart is given it. That is to say he is 
checked in his flight of exaltation to heaven and made to feel 
his impotence. This suggests that the figure coming with the 
clouds, and described as a man, bears this character for a deeper 
reason likewise. His humanity signifies the opposite to all 
overbearing pride before God; it is submission to the divine 
authority, and on the basis of this He is invested with regal 
power and glory by the Ancient of Days. But, while this 
trait is not reproduced in the parousia-sayings about the “Son 
of Man” in the Synoptical Gospels, there are two passages in 
the New Testament which lay stress on the possession of human 
nature by the eschatological judge. One is a saying of Jesus 


2This supposedly-humane character of the figure, taken to symbolize 
the kingdom of God or its King, was a veritable treasure-trove for the 
humanizing liberal theology. Some would go so far as to find in the 
phrase “like a man” a characterization of the ideal humanity exemplified 
in the Kingdom. Applied to Jesus, it made Him the ideal man. From 
their assumption of its actual emergence in the prophecy others then con- 
cluded that the influence of Greek thought is traceable here, which would 
imply, of course, the late origin of the book of Daniel. 


236 — THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Himself, recorded in Jno. V, 27: “He gave him authority to 
execute judgment, because he is a son of man.” It will be 
noticed that in the Greek both son and man lack the article, 
which proves that not the technical title is meant here, but sim- 
ply the common phrase for an individual of the human spe- 
cies. It is not further explained in which respect human na- 
ture qualifies the judge for executing his function. That it 
enables Him to enter subjectively into the thoughts and feel- 
ings of those to be judged is usually assumed, but not capable 
of verification. Still it is natural to surmise that our Lord 
in uttering this word alluded to the title “Son-of-Man,” which 
He bears as judge specifically, and that consequently some real 
connection between the name and the function must have ex- 
isted in his mind. The other passage is from Paul’s address 
in Athens, Acts XVII, 31: “Inasmuch as he has appointed a 
day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by 
a man whom he has ordained.” Here likewise some stress 
is laid on the judge being a man. Reference to the title is not 
impossible. Still, in view of its non-occurrence elsewhere in 
Paul, this seems improbable. Our conclusion on this point 
must, therefore, remain suspended. 

The second group of passages containing the title consists of 
those in which Jesus couples with it statements concerning his 
approaching suffering, death and (sometimes) resurrection. 
To this class belong: Mk. VIII, 31=Lk. IX, 22; Mk. IX, 9= 
Matt. XVII, 9; Mk. IX, 12=Matt. XVII, 12; Mk. IX, 31= 
Matt. XVII, 22; Mk. X, 33=Matt. XX, 18=Lk. XVIII, 31; 
Mk. XIV, 21> Matt. XX VI, 24—Lk. XXII, 22; Mk. XIV, 
41; Matt. XII, 4o=Lk. XI, 30; Matt. XXVI, 2=Lk. XXII, 
48. That the joining together of the title and these peculiar 
predicates is not accidental appears not only from the con- 
stancy of occurrence, but also from its frequency, beginning 
precisely there where the direct announcement by Jesus of his 
approaching passion sets in. With this group a small number 
of other statements may be reckoned differing from the pre- 
ceding in this respect that, not the crisis of the passion in par- 
ticular, but the life of humiliation in general leading up to this 
crisis is coupled with the name. To this little group belongs the 


THE SON OF MAN 237 


well-known ransom passage, Mk. X, 45=Matt. XX, 28; fur- 
ther the saying Matt. VIII, 2o=—Lk. IX, 58, about the Son-of- 
Man not having where to lay his head; as a third may, perhaps, 
be added to these two the declaration, Lk. XIX, 10: “For the 
Son-of-Man came to seek and save that which was lost.” * The 
ransom passage forms, as it were, a transition from the large 
group of passion predictions to this smaller group of more gen- 
eralized character, since it first speaks of the ministry of the life 
as a whole and then represents this as issuing into the climax 
of death. 

How is the preference for the use of Son-of-Man in such 
connections to be explained? It has been attempted to derive 
this feature indirectly from Daniel. Great suffering is there 
foretold for the people of the saints, and, inasmuch as the Son- 
of-Man appears identified with the people, the identification is 
supposed to extend to his suffering with them. Or, it has been 
thought that the combination was obtained from Daniel in an 
even more indirect way. The manlike figure, it is argued, sym- 
bolizes the spirit of obedience and submission to God in con- 
trast with the overbearing behavior of the beasts, and with this 
in principle the destiny to suffer was given. Neither of these 
explanations appears plausible. Nothing is intimated in Daniel 
about the sufferings in store for the One like unto aman. And 
the ideas of obedience and submission are not simply equivalent 
to the idea of suffering and death. Nor should it be urged that 
the repeated use of the verb “must” in joining subject and 
predicate together in these statements proves the implicit pres- 
ence of the suffering-idea in the Son-of-Man conception as 
such. For this “must” is simply the expression for the neces- 
sity of Scripture-fulfilment. The Old Testament has fore- 
announced the passion, but that it has done so in the name Son- 
of-Man is not thereby affirmed. For the real explanation we 
shall, it seems to us, have to approach the problem from the 
opposite point of view. The thought of humiliation and death 
is not analytically obtained from the name Son-of-Man. It is 


3In Matt. XVIII, 11, the same sentence is believed to be an insertion 
into the text, although many authorities, some ancient, have it. R. V. puts 
it in the margin. 


238 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


rather joined to it on the principle of contrast. The conjunc- 
tion to insert for paraphrasing is not “because” but “although.” 
Not, because He is the Son-of-Man must He undergo humilia- 
tion and suffering and death, but although He is the Son-of- 
Man is such a destiny, paradoxically, in store for Him. When 
to our average feeling the name has become associated with 
suffering and sorrow, this is largely due to the preconceived 
impression that it preponderatingly designates the human nature 
of our Lord with an implied contrast to the divine nature. In 
such a contrast the human nature as the seat of weakness and 
humiliation easily imparts this same aspect to the name by which 
it is supposed to be described. As will presently appear, the 
names Son of God and Son-of-Man can not be thus simply 
distributed over the two natures of Christ as descriptive of the 
divine and human respectively. Nor do the facts of the usage 
bear out such an impression. The mention of the resurrection 
jointly with the passion and death in some of the sayings 
shows that the conception of “Son-of-Man” does not exclu- 
sively go with the thought of debasement and shame. The 
name as easily enters into the prospect opened up by the trans- 
figuration beyond the passion as the name Son of God, Mk. 
IX, 7, 9. As little as in the name Elijah there is any sugges- 
tion of the maltreatment inflicted upon him, as little is the 
name Son-of-Man prophetic of the similar and more severe in- 
dignities that are to befall Jesus, Mk. IX, 12, 13. The special 
disgrace associated with the delivery of the Son-of-Man to the 
Gentiles, Mk. X, 33, points rather to a designation of high in- 
herent dignity than to the opposite. The betrayal of the Son- 
of-Man is an extreme crime, not merely, it seems, because 
committed upon the Messiah in general, but particularly be- 
cause it is inflicted upon that high, majestic type of a Messiah 
which the name Son-of-Man connotes, Mk. XIV, 21. That © 
the betrayal is a betrayal into the hands of sinners likewise may 
perhaps point to the same train of thought, Mk. XIV, 41. The 
Son-of-Man is the One greater than Jonah and Solomon, not 
appreciated in his greatness by his own generation, Lk. IX, 
30-32. The note of dignity and majesty is in all these instances 
more or less clearly perceptible. In the saying that contrasts 


THE SON OF MAN 239 


the shelterless Son-of-Man with the foxes and birds the con- 
trast loses its point when Jesus enters into the contrast not 
merely as a man generically, but even more so when He is set 
over against these animals as a weak, humiliated subject per se. 
The very point of the saying obviously is that the highest of 
the high, according to the name borne by Him, should never- 
theless have to do without such common creature comforts as 
even foxes and birds enjoy. In the sayings about “saving” and 
“ministering” the condescension is fitly measured only if Son- 
of-Man connotes the innate majesty of our Lord. There is no 
reason then to assume that the name had ceased for Jesus to 
possess the same glorious significance that had once for all been 
stamped upon it through the vision in Daniel. It was a name 
of honor and splendor throughout. But for this very reason it 
admirably served the purpose of Jesus to impress most strongly 
and pointedly upon the disciples the startling character, and 
through that the supreme importance, of his passion and death. 
As in other instances in our Lord’s teaching so here paradox 
serves the double purpose of provoking attention and of con- 
veying emphasis. Even the transcendent glory which belongs 
of right to the Son-of-Man Messiah as portrayed in Daniel can 
not in the least dispense Him from the experience of humili- 
ation and death. Nay, we may go one step further and find it 
intimated that, notwithstanding the paradox involved, the glo- 
rious Son-of-Man can only come to complete revelation after 
the impending disgrace and death shall have been gone through 
with and surmounted. That the name in itself was associated 
for Jesus with the highest conception of glory finds further 
support in the peculiar use He makes of it in the third person. 
In part at least this will have to be explained from our Lord’s 
profound humility, which made Him shrink from coupling the 
exalted predicates involved with the pronoun “I.” * 

A third group is formed by the passages in the Fourth Gos- 
pel. These deserve separate treatment on account of the pe- 
culiar associations with which our Lord here handles the title. 


4A similar motive may be observed at work in Paul, when he attributes 
the visions, and the being caught up into heaven, to “a man in Christ,” al- 
though it is evident he means himself, II Cor. XII, 1-4. 


240 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


/ 
It occurs in the Gospel secre counting in Ch. IX, 35, 
where the reading varies between ‘Son of God” and “Son-of- 
Man.” The other references are: I, 51; III, 13, 14; VI, 27, 
53, 62; VIII, 28; EX, 35; XII, 33, 34 (bis) ; XIII, 31. 

It will be observed that in all these instances the title is used 
by Jesus as a self-designation. The Evangelist does not employ 
it of Jesus. This is true likewise of the Synoptists, but in the 
case of John it is more significant because the latter takes re- 
peated occasion to name Jesus by some characteristic title, which 
is not to the same extent true of the other Evangelists. ‘The 
fact has an important bearing on the historicity of this manner 
of self-designation on the part of Jesus, a question to which we 
shall have occasion to return presently.° The title, it will be 
further noticed, occurs in John from the very beginning of 
Jesus’ ministry. This also is in harmony with that phase of 
the Synoptic representation of earlier occasional use which is 
not seldom made subject to doubt, even where the congested 
eschatological use towards the close of the ministry is not 
called into question. There is, however, neither inequality of 
distribution nor effort towards avoiding it to be observed with 
John. Quite obviously it is the subject-matter spoken of on 
each occasion that induces the use of the name in Jesus’ dis- 
course. In the majority of instances this subject-matter con- 
cerns the provenience from heaven, or the return to heaven, or 
the consequent appurtenance to heaven, of the Speaker. Some- 
times the coming from and the return to heaven are joined 
together as coexpressed in the name; so in III, 13, 14: “No 
one has ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of 
heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted 
up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man 
be lifted up” ; likewise in VI, 62: ““What then if ye should be- 
hold the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” In 
other cases only the one direction of this twofold movement 
finds expression; thus I, 51 the derivation from and enduring 
contact with heaven is illustrated by Jacob’s ladder with the 


5 The only exception to this, XII, 34, is only apparently so. Here Jesus’ 
opponents ask: ‘Who is this Son-of-Man?” But, as the “this” indicates, 
this is merely a backward reference to the statement quoted from Jesus 
Himself: “The Son-of-Man must be lifted up.” 


THE SON OF MAN 241 


ascending and descending angels; in VIII, 28 and XII, 33, 34 
only the return movement to heaven included in the “being 
lifted up,” if not exclusively expressed, is dwelt upon; the same 
purpose is served by the thought of glorification with the Fa- 
ther coupled with the name in XIII, 31. On the other hand, 
the statements of V1, 27, 53, 62, while presupposing the descent 
of the One to be eaten out of heaven, seem to place the main 
emphasis on the fact that the “flesh” and “blood” of the Son- 
of-Man must be eaten, and thus to associate the title with the 
possession of human nature by Jesus, which renders Him eat- 
able as flesh and blood; cp. vss. 51, 62. So far as the latter 
motivation predominates the verses 27 and 53 belong to the 
next group to be examined. 

The fact stands out significantly that Son-of-Man connotes 
in the Fourth Gospel the heavenly, superhuman side of Jesus’ 
mysterious existence, and that consequently it becomes the clas- 
sical expression of what is called his pre€xistence. This great 
truth is even more clearly taught in connection with it than with 
the title in whose wake we would more confidently expect to 
meet it, the title Son of God. And while in the Synoptical 
utterances the parousia-transcendentalism stands in the fore- 
ground, in the Johannine sayings the thought is shifted back- 
ward to the pre-temporal, pre-mundane life in the past out of 
which the Son-of-Man came.® The Son-of-Man is here rather 
the One who came than the One who is to come (again). But 
the point to observe is that in this retrospective setting of the 
title and its combination with the “coming” of the Son-of-Man 
there is equal, if not greater, resemblance to the Danielic vision 
as there is in the Synoptical parousia pictures. For there can 
be no doubt but the scene in Daniel means to describe the in- 
troduction of a superhuman, heavenly Being into the lower 
world, and that after a theophanic fashion. Having regard 
to the Synoptists only, one might say, and it has been said, that 
the traditional doctrige of the preéxistence of Christ is some- 
thing different and mee restricted than what these parousia 


6In Mk. II, 10, the implied contrast to “on earth” is “in heaven.” But 
this is not intended in the mind of the Jews to point back to a heavenly pre- 
existence or a heavenly existence at the time of speaking. The reference 
is to a future heavenly state and function. 


242 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


predictions imply. It has been argued that the preéxistence is 
in them conceived with reference to the second coming only, that . 
they, therefore, connote the existence of Jesus in heaven now 
and only this, and fall short of the Church doctrine. Daniel 
would teach a preéxistence proleptically, prophetically conceived, 
something in no wise inconsistent with the origin of Jesus 
through birth into history. Jesus in utilizing the imagery for 
his parousia predictions would have given the true interpreta- 
tion of Daniel, and thus we should be robbed of the main Old 
Testament passage introducing the note of preéxistence into 
Messianic prophecy. The Fourth Gospel is said to be inexact 
when it represents Jesus as building on the scene in Daniel a 
conception of preéxistence in the solid sense of his having been 
with God before the world was. 

This whole argument rests on the error of carrying back 
the New Testament distinction between the first and second 
coming of the Christ into the prophecy of Daniel. There is all 
the less warrant for this, since even in the New Testament ter- 
minology this distinction is by no means clearly formulated, 
but only in process of becoming so. To Daniel the Messianic 
parousia is as yet an undivided whole. If the occasion and 
the surroundings of this Danielic vision bring it with them- 
selves that the features and elements belonging to the culminat- 
ing issue of the Messiah’s career are chiefly dwelt upon, this 
does not justify the conclusion that a descent from heaven 
placed back of the Messiah’s advent can have reference to such 
culmination only. If in the hands of our Lord the Messianic 
advent resolves itself into two instalments, a first and a second 
appearance, then the general signature of the undivided advent, 
such as the supernaturalness and the theophanic nature and the 
celestial provenience of the coming can be indiscriminately 
applied to either stage, which is not denying, of course, that 
the features Daniel seized upon may have found a more realis- 
tic fulfilment in the second stage than in the first. We have 
no reason to affirm that to Jesus’ mind his Son-of-Man char- 
acter belonged exclusively to the end of the world. He clearly 
has found it expressed in both stages of his appearance, and in 
doing so has not misinterpreted the words in Daniel. Nor dare 


THE SON OF MAN 243 


we even say that the perceptible difference between the Synop- 
. tical utterances and the Johannine discourses is on either side 
of an exclusive character. Even in John the combination of the 
title with the eschatological epiphany is not lacking, at least if 
the explanation of the judging function from his being a man 
in Ch. VI, 27 is intended by Jesus as an allusion to the name 
Son-of-Man, a conclusion almost impossible to avoid. In the 
Synoptics, on the other hand, we meet with a number of pas- 
sages where Jesus couples the coming of the Son-of-Man with 
functions exercised during his earthly ministry. “The Son-of- 
Man came to seek and save that which is lost,’ and “The Son- 
of-Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and to 
give his life a ransom for many” require, as pointed out above, 
that the full pregnant sense of the “coming” as a coming from 
heavenly glory shall be put into them in order to make it a 
proper foil to the depth of humiliation our Lord descended into. 
Jesus plainly was conscious of being the Son-of-Man and acting 
as such through his entire earthly ministry, and not exclusively, 
though more emphatically so, at the cosmical close of his Mes- 
sianic career. 

But, it might be asked, does not the appearance of the Dan- 
ielic figure in the likeness of a man preclude every reference of 
the celestial origin of it to the pre-incarnate state? Do we not, 
after having in the manner indicated forced it to describe 
Jesus’ initial appearance, obtain a conception utterly at variance 
with the Church doctrine of the preéxistence of the Messiah in 
the form of God? As for Daniel, the simple answer may be 
given to this, that the descriptive phrase “like unto a man,” if 
it goes beyond fixing symbolically the contrast to the beasts, 
serves only to render the Person coming upon the clouds de- 
scribable. How else should He have been made to appear than 
in human form? Is not that the ordinary form of angelic 
appearance? The phrase surely is not intended to teach any- 
thing as to the nature of the coming One’s existence in the . 
heavenly world. He came from there; on that the emphasis 
rests, and on that the evidence for the preéxistence, generically 
considered, depends, not on the phrase describing the form pos- 
sessed before or assumed at the point of his entrance into the 


24:4 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


sphere of the visible. He came from the world of the divine, 
and assumed visible shape through the likeness of a man: it is 
hard to see what inconsistency exists between the two state- 
ments, and that the former must be reckoned with no less than 
the latter, the portrayal of the coming as a theophanic coming 
clearly shows. Such a coming is only spoken of in the Old 
Testament, where something actually divine descends from the 
higher regions to earth; in fact the description is customary 
for the appearance of God Himself in theophany.’ At bottom 
it is not different with the descriptions of the incarnation either 
in John or in the Synoptics. Do Matthew and Luke mean, 
that because Jesus entered into appearance in the form of a 
human babe, therefore nothing different or higher lay back of 
that? It is incredible to believe that when these accounts were 
written such a time-circumscribed Christology satisfied the 
writers. The Evangelists see certainly far more in Jesus’ ulti- 
mate provenience than could be expressed in terms of emer- 
gence in human nature, however supernaturally the emergence 
might have been brought about. And the matter allows of 
testing at the other end also: because the Christ coming at the 
parousia was conceived by them as coming in humanly visible 
form, must they on that account have believed that the Christ 
existing during the interval in heaven was a purely human 
Christ? Was there any one at that time who believed this? 
And why should it have been different with the consciousness 
and prospect of Jesus Himself? 

The next, and exceedingly small, group consists of the in- 
stances where the use of the title reveals reflection upon his 
human nature on Jesus’ part. In the Synoptics Mk. II, 27, 28 
belongs to this rubric. The Son-of-Man is lord of the Sabbath, 
because the latter was made for man, not man for it. What 
binds the premise and the conclusion together is the principle 
that what concerns man falls as such under the jurisdiction of 
the Son-of-Man. Why this statement can not be accounted for 
on the ground of a translator’s misapprehension of the generic 
“bar-enash’”’ has been explained before. Man as such could 
not possibly have been considered by Jesus sovereign over the 


*Cp. Ps. SIVITT, 10.5 ACVIE- 2 fs CLV, 32 isa, i 0 oa 


THE SON OF MAN 245 


Sabbath. The latter comes under consideration as one thing, 
and a high-standing one (“‘even” or “also’’ of the Sabbath), 
among the things to which the lordship of the Son-of-Man 
extends. From John the looser (non-titular) use of the phrase 
in V, 27, may be put by the side of this. But we here have also 
the statements VI, 27, 51, 62, already commented upon in the 
preceding group. The context of these passages is peculiar in 
that it joins together the two features of descent from heaven 
and the possession of human nature by Jesus as a necessary 
equipment for imparting the food and the life spoken of. <Ac- 
cording to vs. 62, the Son-of-Man ascends to where He was be- 
fore, which yields the idea of his being a heavenly figure 
throughout, for the future no less than for the past. In one re- 
spect, to be sure, this future stage of Jesus’ existence in heaven 
differs from the first, since, as pointed out above, the original 
coming of the Son-of-Man from heaven does not imply with 
John his preexistence there in human form, “the flesh’ being 
only the visible manifestation through which the Logos ap- 
pears and acts among men, when become incarnate, I, 14. 
Whether there are indications in this discourse of the future 
functioning of the human nature in or from heaven is well 
worth looking into most carefully. The references to future 
activity seem to be plainly present, the only question being 
whether in these the close association between existence in 
human nature, celestially conceived and attaching to the name 
Son-of-Man, still continues to operate in the mind of Jesus. 
It is not, of course, necessary for showing this that the title 
shall explicitly occur in these statements, for the whole drift 
of the discourse, with the repeated emergence of the name and 
the emphasis upon the ‘coming down,” even where the name is 
not explicit, furnish sufficient warrant for that. What needs 
closer investigation is the actual futurity of the acts and proc- 
esses described, and the further question, whether it be an ex- 
clusive futurity with which Jesus speaks of something not yet 
possible in his present earthly state, but reserved for the state in 
heaven after the Son-of-Man shall have ascended to where He 
was before. From the tenses used nothing can be inferred with 
certainty. In vs. 27, “the food which the Son-of-Man s/rall 


246 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


give you,” the text is subject to doubt, many good authorities 
reading, “gives unto you” in the present tense; hence the future 
occurrence of the giving can not be proven from it; neither, 
however, can the present, if it be preferred, prove that the giv- 
ing belongs to the time of speaking or the earthly state, far less 
its exclusion from a future state. It is possible to find here a 
so-called un-chronological present used for characteristic de- 
scription. In vs. 33 likewise the tenses are unrestricted as to 
time and descriptive of function only: “that which comes out 
of heaven and gives life.” In vss. 39, 40, 44, 54, on the other 
hand, we are on more certain ground, for here the resurrection 
is spoken of. Nor can the strictly future reference here be 
called in question on the ground that in the Fourth Gospel 
discourses (as with Paul) eschatological occurrences are 
drawn into the present. This is undoubtedly true, and true 
not only of. the resurrection, but also of the judgment, V, 21, 
22, 25; VIII, 26, 50; IX, 39.° Nevertheless such a mere an- 
ticipation of the eschatological is excluded in Ch. VI, partly 
because Jesus here speaks in the future tense, partly because 
He adds the determination “in the last day” in all the four in- 
stances quoted above. This points to a stage in which the 
Savior will assert his life-giving power, not merely in the gen- 
erally-soteric sense displayed on earth, but in quite a specific 
sense peculiar to that crisis. The Son-of-Man plays a role, 
quite in accordance with the Synoptical representation in the 
resurrection and the judgment at the end. Only, the discourse 
in John adds to this the feature that the authority and power 
for this eschatological function in making alive is derived from 
his origin as Son-of-Man from heaven and from what He is in 
virtue of this. According to the peculiar wording of vs. 27, 
“the food which abides’ is that which produces eternal life; 
otherwise the form of expression “‘the food which feeds unto 
eternal life’ might have been expected. It is abiding, eternal 
quality which makes Him the Bestower of this bread; in fact 
the bread is identical with Himself; the effect could not be 


8 Over against these stands a number of statements in which the exercise 
of such, a present judgment seems to be denied, and the judgment re- 
ferred to the Father and the last day, II], 17; V, 29; VIII, 13; XII, 47. 


THE SON OF MAN 247 


otherwise than the Giver, vss. 35, 48; hence in vs. 51 He calls 
Himself ‘the living bread which came down out of heaven.” 
It is, therefore, at any rate certain that the Son-of-Man, qua 
Son-of-Man, performs the task of the impartation of a life 
rendering the receiver incapable of death. The question now 
recurs whether there is reference here at all to a present 
exercise of this task or whether the entire process is projected 
by Jesus into the future, either into the eschatological crisis 
or at least into the intervening period from the resurrection 
onward till the end. On the surface the observation might 
seem relevant that, according to the tenor of the whole Gos- 
pel, the activity of Christ in the pre-resurrection and in the 
post-resurrection state is continuous, and that no incision can 
be made which would exclude one or the other particular act 
from the former and assign it to the latter. A reference to 
the atonement, the giving of his “flesh” into death for the 
life of the world, has been found in vs. 51. The future tense 
used “which I will give,’ and on the reading of the T. R. 
even twice used, “the bread which I will give is my flesh, 
which I will give for the life of the world” has invited this 
interpretation. When, however, by eminent textual authorities 
the second “which I will give’ is deleted, the reference to 
the atonement becomes much less obvious. The statement 
serves in the context the very natural purpose of explain- 
ing how Jesus could at one and the same time be the bread 
of life in Person and the Giver of the same bread. ‘The state- 
ment that the bread He will give consists of his flesh solves the 
apparent riddle, for, if one gives himself, he is both gift and 
giver in one. That this bread is to be given at some future 
stage for the life of the world does not compel a reference to 
the atonement. The phrase “for the life of the world,” when 
viewed in the light of the entire discourse, suggests a rather 
more direct communication of Himself as food than the act 
of the atonement would be. The latter is, to be sure, the pre- 
supposition of every act of giving of Himself for nourishment 
on the part of Jesus, but is not, strictly speaking, identical with 
such an act itself. The next thing to be thought of would be 
the action of Christ in the Lord’s supper. That the eating of 


248 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the flesh and the drinking of the blood are separately men- 
tioned fits in well with this idea. Also the realistic way in 
which the partaking of the body is described as a tpyeuy, 
literally a “chewing,” an audible eating, as it were, would lead 
us to think of something more intensified and differently com- 
plexioned than the common spiritual act of believing as such. 
By omitting in the present connection the words “and now is” 
added in V, 25 Jesus may have desired to indicate that the 
reference here is to something of which it can not as yet be 
affirmed that it now is. Paul also has compared the ob- 
servance of the Lord’s Supper with the eating of the manna in 
the wilderness by the fathers, I Cor. X, 1-11. Further, the 
point of departure for the discourse in the feeding of the five 
thousand may be taken into account; perhaps there is an allu- 
sion to the later term “‘eucharist’’ as a favorite name for the 
Supper in the twofold repeated use of the verb evyapiorely in 
vss. II, 23, although here, of course, the opposite relation may 
have existed the name for the supper having been derived 
from this context in John and the corresponding passages in 
the Synoptics. The views of the supper found with Ignatius, 
Justin, Irenzeus seem actually to have been colored by the dis- 
course of Jno. VI. If Calvin is right, the discourse of Ch. VI 
appeared to the Evangelist in the light of a substitute for the 
account of the institution of the supper which he did not intend 
to record. It must be acknowledged that these arguments throw 
considerable weight into the scale for understanding the spe- 
cific act described as taking place in the celebration of the Sup- 
per. The main difficulty under which this interpretation labors, 
and it is a serious one, arises from the fact that Jesus in this 
very context, and also elsewhere in the Gospel, derives the same 
effects here attributed to the eating of his flesh and the drink- 
ing of his blood from the simple act of receiving Him and be- 
lieving on Him, vss. 35, 40, 47. Asa rule it is assumed by 
those adopting the view sketched above, that the effect of 
faith in Christ and the effect of celebrating the Supper are, 
if not specifically different, at least greatly differing in intens- 
ity. The alternation of the two forms of statement in such 
close proximity speaks against this. We, therefore, feel in- 


THE SON OF MAN 249 


clined to leave the question in suspense, the more so since for 
our proximate purpose the evidence is independent of a de- 
cision. The Son-of-Man as a heaven-descended being, and as 
returned to heaven, contributes by his human nature, more par- 
ticularly by his glorified human nature, to the saving process of 
communicating his human life to the disciples. Whether He 
does so in the Supper only, or merely more intensively through 
its observance, may remain an open question.? 

All this, it will have to be acknowledged, is but scant material 
to warrant the current impression that Son of Man stands spe- 
cifically for the identification of our Lord with human nature 
in such a thorouighgoing sense as to render it the opposite to 
Son-of-God for designating the divine nature. That it lent 
itself to such use the couple of passages commented upon prove, 
but the usage does not seem to have found early development. 
There are, however, two passages in the Epistles which do re- 
flect on this side of Christ’s make-up in dependence on the 
Son-of-Man idea. These are I Cor. XV, 27 and Heb. II, 
6-8. The Pauline passage does not explicitly contain the title, 
but most probably the Apostle had it in mind in borrowing 
from Psa. VIII the statement about the subjection of all ter- 
restrial created things to man (cp. the parallelism in vs. 4 of 
the Psalm between “man” and “son of man’). In Heb. II the 
statement of the Psalm likewise forms the point of departure; 
in the entire quotation of vss. 6-8 the subject spoken of is, 
quite in agreement with the meaning of the Psalm, mankind 
generically. Only the writer remembers that the Psalm being 
a creation-Psalm speaks of destiny appointed, not of attain- 
ment as already at that point realized, and thus is led to observe 
that the actualisation has in principle come about only, as yet, 
in Jesus, and will through Him pass on to his people, a 
thought all the more easily connected with the words of the 
Psalm, because in the latter itself there is a pointed con- 


9Zahn, who strongly argues in favor of reference to the supper, is 
thereby forced to draw a sharp distinction between faith in the Savior and 
eating his flesh and drinking his blood: faith appropriates the incarnate 
Person of Jesus, but does not eat his flesh. In order to make the distinc- 
tion between believing and receiving life in a higher way plausible, he even 
in III, 3, 5, puts faith before the birth from above, Das Ev. des Joh., p. 353. 


250 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


trast between the lowliness and insignificance of man as such 
and his high destiny through divine appointment, and the writer 
of Hebrews sees this striking contrast repeating itself in the 
sequence of Jesus’ humiliation and exaltation. Although the 
transition from the generic son-of-man to the Messianic Son- 
of-Man can be thus naturally explained, it is still more plausible 
to assume that it was facilitated by the writer’s familiarity with 
the titular use of the phrase. Only there is no reason to assume 
that he interpreted the Psalm as directly Messianic. There is 
less of theological coloring in Paul’s simple statement of I 
Cor. XV. Still the ease with which he borrows the Psalm’s 
language to describe Christ’s career of conquest, not deeming 
a word of explanation necessary, leads to the same surmise, 
viz., that the phrase had standing as a title among the Apostle’s 
readers, and was by them, as well as by himself, associated 
with the human nature of Jesus. The reference to Jesus’ sub- 
jection at the close of his career of conquest tends to confirm 
this. Paul stresses that God is not included among the “all 
things’? subjected to man and transfers this feature to Christ. 

Of an influence from the Book of Ezekiel upon the forma- 
tion or employment of the title there is no trace in the Gospels. 
It serves in the prophecy to remind the prophet of his creature- 
hood and weakness over against God, who condescends to 
speak to him. For those who would understand the combina- 
tion of suffering, death, humiliation with the title in the mouth 
of Jesus as partaking of the nature of an analytical judgment, 
the derivation of its meaning from Ezekiel (or the Psalm) 
would almost seem to be inevitable. We, on our part, having 
explained the combination in such passages on the principle of 
contrast, have no occasion to recur upon any other Old Testa- 
ment source but that in Daniel. Finally, it will be observed, 
that neither in Paul nor in Hebrews is there any allusion to 
the Danielic scene. 

Not all sayings in which Jesus employs the title can be sub- 
sumed under the four preceding groups. There are instances 
where apparently it simply designates the Messiah, and the 
choice of it is determined by no other reason than Jesus’ par- 
tiality to the name. In such cases the things predicated of 


THE SON OF MAN 251 


the Son-of-Man are results of his Messiahship, but not neces- 
sarily of that phase of his Messiahship which the title particu- 
larly connotes. An illustration of this is in the introductory 
words of the interpretation of the parable of the sower: “He 
that soweth the good seed is the Son-of-Man,”’ Matt. XIII, 38. 

Having now the Gospel data before us, we are prepared 
to put the question what induced our Lord to avail Himself so 
largely, almost exclusively, of the name Son-of-Man for desig- 
nating his Messiahship. Some have thought of it as a cryptic 
title, intended by Jesus rather to veil than to reveal his claim to 
being the Messiah.*® At one time this was a not uncommon 
theory; later, owing to the attention paid the eschatological ele- 
ment in the Gospels and the investigation of the occurrence and 
usage of the phrase in the Apocalyptic literature, it lost favor. 
More recently Dalman has revived it. While deserving merit 
for championing the linguistic possibility of the use of its Ara- 
maic equivalent in the mouth of Jesus, this scholar has at the 
same time turned the indefiniteness of the phrase in the Aramaic 
idiom to this account, that it supplied Jesus with a term into 
which He could put Messianic significance for his own under- 
standing and that of his more intimate followers, yet in such 
a way that it could be overlooked or misunderstood as to its 
proper import by outsiders from whom He desired to keep his 
Messianic dignity secret. They would not have needed to find 
in it more than the ordinary meaning “man.” This fails to 
commend itself, if for no other reason than for this, that it 
suggests a deliberate attempt on the part of Jesus, not merely 
to keep his Messiahship hidden, but to cause the name for it 
to be misunderstood. Whatever secrecy there was at one time 
about the consciousness of the Messianic vocation belonged to 
the fact as a whole; there is no evidence for its having attached 
itself to this one particular title. As to the hearers before 
whom our Lord used the designation, there is not the slightest 


10 Cp. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 266: “It had 
become a dogma of theology that Jesus used the term Son of Man to veil 
his Messiahship, that is to say, every theologian found in this term what- 
ever meaning he attached to the Messiahship of Jesus, the human, humble, 
ethical, unpolitical, unapocalyptic, or whatever other character was held 
to be appropriate to the orthodox ‘transformed’ Messiahship.” 


252 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


trace of its having awakened curiosity or surprise by reason of 
its mysteriousness as such. ‘The two passages most often 
quoted in support of the secret significance are Matt. XVI, 13 
and Jno. XII. 34. In Matthew (not according to the parallel 
passages in Mk. and Lk.) Jesus puts the question designed to 
elicit Messianic confession in the following form: “Who do 
men say that the Son of Man is?,” or, according to another 
reading, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” If 
one could be sure that the rendering in Matthew here reproduces 
the precise form of the question, rather than Mark and Luke, in 
whose versions the words read simply: ‘‘Who do men say that 
I am?,” then it would seem to imply a certain amount of un- 
certainty, up to that point, on the people’s part in interpreting 
it, such as had allowed of association with other than Mes- 
sianic thoughts. It is far from impossible, however, that 
Matthew has employed the appositional phrase for no other 
purpose than to add greater distinctness. Plainly in Mark and 
Luke also the question, interpreted e mente Jesu, allows of 
no other understanding than this: ‘‘Who do men say that I, 
who know myself to be the Messiah, am?’ The whole pe- 
culiarity of Matthew then amounts to this, that he has made 
this implied thought of definite self-knowledge explicit, and 
used for that purpose the title most frequently employed by 
our Lord for voicing such self-knowledge elsewhere. Accord- 
ing to Matthew himself there had been but few occasions, pre- 
vious to this episode in the Gospel history, where Jesus had in- 
troduced the title, too few by far to have given rise to such 
wide-spread questionings about it. Even supposing, however, 
that a mystic haze had enveloped the name in the minds of 
the people, it would yet by no means follow from this that 
Jesus’ use of it had been intended to produce or foster that 
effect. The purport of the question, no less in Matthew than 
in Mark and Luke, appears to be none other than whether the 
people believed Jesus to be the Messiah or some other figure, not 
whether they interpreted the name Son-of-Man as Messianic 
or not. Asa matter of fact, in the isolated instances of earlier 
usage the Synoptics are at one in so representing it that the 
name was perspicuous to the hearers. In the question whether 


THE SON OF MAN 253 


the Son-of-Man has power on earth to forgive sins, the point 
at issue was as to the region or state in which He could exer- 
cise this power, on earth as well as in heaven, but this very 
formulation of the issue presupposes acquaintance with and 
a measure of understanding on the part of those who ques- 
tioned Jesus’ right to assume such authority of what the Son- 
of-Man stood for. It is not different with the argument con- 
cerning the lordship of the Son-of-Man over the Sabbath, for 
this also Jesus expects to be understood and honored, at least 
in the abstract. As for the disciples, the representation that 
the angels shall in the last day gather out of the Son-of-Man’s 
kingdom the evil elements (Matt. XIII, 41) is obviously to 
the mind of the Evangelist quite innocent of every intent to 
create a sense of mystery in their minds. To carry through 
this whole theory of deliberate secrecy it will be evidently 
necessary to go back of the Evangelists and substitute for the 
situations described by them quite different ones, which they 
have failed to appreciate. 

The other passage which has been believed to lend counte- 
nance to the cryptic character of the title from the standpoint 
of the people is Jno. XII, 34. Here the multitude ask: “How 
sayest thou, the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this 
Son of Man?” The perplexity of the Jews, however, does not 
pertain to his use of the title “Son of Man.” On the con- 
trary they appear to have a fixed opinion as to what befits the 
Messianic figure so designated. What they are unable to un- 
derstand concerns the one feature specified by Jesus, that He 
must be lifted up, which to them seemed to imply a departure 
after appearance: “We have heard out of the law, that the 
Christ abideth forever : and how sayest thou, The Son of Man 
must be lifted up?” They simply apply what Jesus had said on 
previous occasions in regard to the lifting up of the Son-of- 
Man to the Christ. It will be noticed that in the immediately 
preceding discourse Jesus, while speaking of the fact of his 
being lifted up, coupled the statement with the pronoun “I,” 
and not with the subject “Son-of-Man.”’ That they them- 
selves, without more ado, from mere memory, make the sub- 
stitution of “the Christ” for “the Son-of-Man” proves how 


254 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


familiar they are with the import of the phrase. It was fully 
understood to mean the Messiah. Hence in their further ques- 
tion, ‘“‘Who is this Son-of-Man,” the wonder expressed can not 
refer to the title as such. It admits of no other paraphrase 
than, What kind of a Son-of-Man (Messiah) is this thou art 
speaking of ? But, if the promiscuous multitude could criticize 
after this manner a novel turn given to the title, it goes with- 
out saying that there could have been nothing secretive about 
it in the intent of Jesus. 

The question, however, arises how this familiarity with the 
name, even on the part of the Jewish multitude in our Lord’s 
life-time, can be reconciled with the evident avoidance of its 
use in the circles of early believers, to which the literature of 
the New Testament, outside of the Gospels, bears witness. 
Entirely without exception this avoidance is not, for Stephen, 
according to Acts VII, 56, exclaimed, ‘‘Behold, I see the heav- 
ens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of 
God.” In Rev. I, 13; XIV, 14, on the other hand, theres 
close adherence to the scene of Daniel and consequently no 
more than description: “like unto a son of man.” The rare- 
ness of the use must be acknowledged. By no means, however, 
can it be turned into an argument for the unhistoricity of the 
Gospels in this matter. Where this is done one very im- 
portant consideration is overlooked. In the Gospels themselves, 
both the Synoptics and John, the title is exclusively a self- 
designation in the mouth of Jesus. There is no instance of 
objective reference by others to Jesus as the Son-of-Man. If 
it were not for the sayings and discourses of Jesus recorded in 
the Gospels, these would present the same phenomenon of the 
absence of the title as do the Epistles of Paul. Or reversely, 
if the Epistles had had frequent occasion to introduce the Lord 
as speaking, they too perhaps might have quoted Him as in- — 
troducing and describing Himself as the Son-of-Man. The 
problem of scarceness of occurrence must be obviously ex- 
plained on some other ground than that of unacquaintance. 
Nor can any theory of later origination of the title in the early 
Church account for it, if due regard be had to the peculiar form 
in which the phenomenon appears. Let us grant that a Mes- 


THE SON OF MAN 255 


sianic designation in general might have conceivably entered 
into the early Christian vocabulary de novo. But this is not 
the thing that confronts us. The ab-extra production of a 
Messianic self-designation, remaining wholly restricted to the 
speech of Jesus Himself, this is something far too artificial 
to be thought of. 

The same reason which restrained the disciples in Jesus’ 
life-time on earth in all likelihood restrained the later New Tes- 
tament writers from adopting the title as a means of referring 
to Jesus. There must have clung to it a peculiar subjective 
coloring, which rendered it next to indelicate to remove it from 
his own lips. In the Apocalyptic literature such a feeling does 
not appear. The Similitudes of the Book of Enoch speak quite 
freely of the Son-of-Man with a third-person reference. But 
for those who had associated with Jesus in his ministry, to 
whom Apocalyptic speculation had become living experience, 
and who had moreover observed the extreme humility with 
which Jesus had kept his utterances about Himself, connected 
with this name, in the form of the third person, we may well 
assume a feeling of delicacy of this nature to have had a real 
determining influence. The name had to them obtained the 
greater part of its meaning from this that on the one hand 
Jesus applied it to Himself, and on the other hand applied it 
under a veil of profound humility. They would not have so 
easily said as the multitude did, “Who is this Son-of-Man?” 
With this further agrees the indirect .allusive way in which 
Paul, I Cor. XV, 27, 28, and the author of Hebrews II, 5 ff. 
reveal their acquaintance with the name. 

Still, after all, there must have existed in our Lord’s mind 
a potent reason why He preferred this way of designating 
Himself to all others. Other names He might acknowledge, 
or at least not repudiate, but this name stands alone as the 
name that was his favorite, and as a result became almost elim- 
inative of others in his use, the Son of God only excepted, 
though even the latter did not attain to the same frequency 
upon his lips. If we see correctly, this potent reason lay in 
the fact that the title Son-of-Man stood farthest removed 
from every possible Jewish prostitution of the Messianic of- 


256 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS. 


fice. In this respect it surpasses even the well-accredited Old 
Testament titles of a different, though not in themselves ob- 
jectionable, type. In close adherence to the spirit of the scene 
in Daniel from which it was taken, it suggested a Messianic 
career, in which, all of a sudden, without human interference 
or military conflict, through an immediate act of God, the high- 
est dignity and power are conferred. The kingship here por- 
trayed is not only supernatural; it is “transcendental.” It 
moves in an altogether different sphere from the kingdom 
which the spirit of Judaism favored and expected. By call- 
ing Himself the Son-of-Man Jesus imparted to the Messiah- 
ship his own heaven-centered spirit. And the height to which 
He thus lifted his Person and his work may well have had 
something to do with the hesitancy of his early followers to 
name Him with this greatest most celestial of all titles. As 
a matter of fact, we can still test this by ourselves. Neither 
in the language of private piety, nor in that of common wor- 
ship, hymnodic or otherwise, has Son-of-Man ever become 
thoroughly domesticated. And it is perhaps good that this 
should be so.** 


11 Where the title reappears in patristic literature it begins to mark the 
theological distinction between the two natures in Christ, the other name 
used for this purpose being the Son of God. Thus in Justin Martyr and 
Ignatius. 


CHartrer XIV 
THE SAVIOR 


THE Messianic task is conceived in a variety of ways. These 
do not always attach themselves to the Messianic names. Some 
of the functions which Jesus performs as Messiah are to such 
an extent the direct outcome of the make-up of his Person as 
to require scarcely separate naming. The work inheres in 
Him who performs it. It is the method of the Fourth Gospel 
to resolve the Savior’s task into the several aspects of what 
He is by his eternal nature or his historical equipment. Life, 
light, truth, grace well-nigh cease being abstractions and pass 
over into concrete personal names. ‘There is, however, one 
comprehensive term in which Jesus and after Him the New 
Testament witnesses and writers have characteristically de- 
scribed his mission. This is the term odZew “to save.” The 
nouns going with this verbal form are not of frequent use 
in the Gospels. Xarnia and its cognate owtypwy occur only 
six times: Lk. I, 69, 71, 77; II, 30; III, 6; XVIII, 9. arn 
is found three times, Lk. I, 47; II, 11; Jno. IV, 42. Of these 
nine occurrences of the two terms together only three belong 
to the speech of Jesus Himself; wry. He uses once, Jno. 
IV, 42, and oarnpia twice, Lk. XIX, 9; Jno. IV, 22. 

In the remainder of the New Testament these terms are of 
more frequent occurrence. It is true the personal name oat 7p 
is no more frequent in Acts than in the Gospels, being con- 
fined here also to two passages, V, 31; XIII, 23. But 
datnpia immediately in Acts springs into greater prominence, 
appearing six times, IV, 12; VII, 25; XIII, 26, 47; XVI, 17; 
XXVII, 34. In the Epistles, on the other hand, cwr%p is 
relatively frequent, even when the Pastoral Epistles, where 
for some special reason the references accumulate, are’ not 
counted in. It appears nine times outside of the Pastorals, 

257 


258 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Eph 'V, 235) Phil) Tl) j2o; Tl" Pet) Tr ri pall coe neeanes 
18; I Jno. IV, 14; Ju. 25. In the Pastorals alone, with ref- 
erence to either God or Christ we have: I Tim. I, 1; 
IE gs TVy 103 IT Pim TS aos) Tit si ee 
13; III, 4, 6; nine cases. XYwrnpia becomes quite pervasive 
in the Epistles being found no less than thirty-five times (in- 
cluding the three instances in the Apokalypse). 

The prominence of the idea in the Gospels should not be 
measured by the infrequency of “Savior” and “salvation” 
within the limits of these writings. Back of these technical 
terms lies the use of the verbal concept “to save” and of this 
there is no scarcity in the Gospels. With this our main concern 
is for the present. It is not as easy, however, as it might seem 
at first to fix the sense connected with it by Jesus and the 
writers. “Saving” is one of these conceptions which by the 
very commonness of usage have suffered attrition of meaning 
and lost the sharp contours of their original import. The 
average sense connected with the word in the present-day re- 
ligious mind is the very general one of deliverance without 
any too clear reflection upon the “wherefrom,’ or upon the 
“whereto,”’ the negative sense on the whole predominating in 
a more or less hazy apprehension. 

In any effort to penetrate this haze of generality a distinction 
ought first of all to be made between two meanings which 
oe, according to its ordinary Greek usage bears. It can 
signify “to deliver’ and “‘to heal.” And, if we may believe 
the etymologists, the latter represents the original concept out 
of which the former developed as a general term for all de- 
liverance from any kind of evil, no matter whether less or 
more serious. dew is connected with os, to which word 
in Latin corresponds “sanus.” It would thus naturally come 
to mean “to render sound,” “to render whole,” “to heal.” 
But there are too many examples of words under the in- 
fluence of the biblical spirit transforming and deepening 
themselves than that this should, without more, be counted 
decisive as to the matter in hand. We must investigate the 
biblical facts by themselves. In doing this a weighty pre- 
sumption ought to be created by the facts in the Gospels, par- 


THE SAVIOR 259 


ticularly the usage of Jesus Himself. It is also true, however, 
that we can not refuse to listen to the subsequent N. T. usage, 
for, since this could hardly be a total departure from that of 
Jesus, it is bound to influence our opinion of the latter’s pur- 
port. Close adherence to the curative explanation has been 
favored by the fact that “saving’’ appears most frequently, 
though by no means exclusively, in connection with the heal- 
ing miracles of our Lord. The passages are: Matt. IX, 22 
Pai vyeta ke VIT us): X XV IT aa) (Mk XV, gis Uk, 
Retin) Mika lilies (LEVY QO) Vj 23 3 Vi, -5607 446525 
Piva Os av sos VIII) 36, 503; XVIL, 19), XVI a2, 
In these episodes of healing there is some contact for the 
therapeutic interpretation. In Mk. V, 34, the word effecting 
the miracle is to¢Si vying “be thou whole.” Still further our 
Lord occasionally speaks of Himself as a physician (Matt. IX, 
Pages 73 ki, 31.) in) the, ancient: Church ‘there 
seems to have been more or less current a view of Jesus as the 
great Physician of souls, This may have been partly due to 
the influence of the Stoic philosophy regarding its own propa- 
ganda as aimed at the healing of man.* It will be observed, 
however, that Jesus’ word just quoted is no reply to a criticism 
that He healed the degraded classes, but to the disapproval of 
his conduct in eating with them. It does not, therefore, prop- 
erly apply to the question what “to save’ means in cases of 
healing. Besides, the words spoken in reply by Jesus were evi- 
dently of a proverbial nature, and should be compared in this 
respect with the words of the Capernaumites addressed to Jesus: 
“Physician, heal thyself,’ which do not necessarily contain any 
implication that his critics wanted acts of healing repeated in 
Capernaum.’ 

1Cp. Harnack, Miss. u. Ausbreit. d. Christ. in den ersten drei Jahr- 
hunderten, pp. 72 ff. At that time a parallelism was even drawn between 
Christ and Asklepios. 

2 There is, as touching this point, a lack of uniformity in the rendering of 
ojtew in the English Bible. The A. V. renders “to make whole,” ex- 
cept in Mk. III, 4; Lk. VI, 9, where the addition of “life,” as the object, 
compelled the rendering “to save.” R. V. in the text agrees with this gen- 
eral rendering, but puts as an alternative “to save’ in the margin. The 
only exception to this is Lk. XVIII, 42; here A. V. has (of the blind 


man) “thy faith has saved thee,” whilst R. V. has “thy faith has made 
thee whole,” in both cases a departure from the prevailing rule. This is 


260 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


It is beyond denial that in all these instances not only cures, 
as a matter of fact, took place, but also that the word odeuw 
includes in its meaning that very aspect of the transaction. 
But too rashly the inference has been drawn from this that 
the curative aspect exhausts the concept, or even that it stands 
at the center of its significance. It can be easily shown that 
the translation “to heal’ or “to cure” would seriously obscure 
the actual state of fact. There is in all these cases a specific 
background, and this also, nay, this before aught else, is meant 
to be conveyed by the word itself. SdGew, in the Gospels, 
while connoting the healing act, never depicts it from the 
purely medical point of view. The healing process is subor- 
dinated to a higher purpose, and this higher purpose furnishes 
the chief reason why the occurrence is so denominated. What 
is this higher idea that stands in the background? It is that of 
the transference out of the sphere of death into the sphere of 
life. The whole concept moves, even when for the moment 
confined to healing, along far deeper and more solemn lines 
than the Hellenic contrast between abnormalcy and normalcy. 
The latter is not to any appreciable extent religious; in the 
biblical usage the antithesis between death and life is always 
religiously colored and does not lose any of this coloring 
when through ode the transition from the one sphere into 
the other is described. That there is involved such an ex- 
treme contrast between the issue of life and death appears 
from the opposition in which odfew stands to dmoxvetvew 
and atoAAtivar. Mk. III, 4 (Lk. VI, 9). In the case of the 


all the more curious, since in Mk. X, 52 the same incident is recorded, and 
the usual rule followed. R. V. also disregards its own precedent in Matt. 
XIV, 36 (Mk. VI, 56), when it renders, “As many as touched him were 
made whole,” without marginal alternative. In the taunting words of the 
priests: “He saved others, himself -he can not save,’ Matt. XXVII, 42 
(Mk. XV, 31), the change to “saving” could not be avoided, for although 
the reference in “he saved others” is obviously to the healing miracles, yet 
the term to heal could not under the circumstances be applied to Jesus. 
Hence A. V. and R. V. in this instance both have “to save,” and that in 
both members of the sentences. The inevitableness of departure from the 
rule in this case is proof of the inadequacy (not to say incorrectness) of 
“to make whole” in the ordinary instances. Only when the specific sense of 
cofew is realized, the aptness of the parallelism appears. Others He 
rescued from death (viz. by healing them), Himself He can not rescue 
from death. 


THE SAVIOR 261 


daughter of Jairus, the ultimate intent of the process in the 
natural sphere is explicitly added: “That she may be saved and 
she shall live,’ Mk. V, 23. Those who invite Jesus to save 
Himself from the cross, meaning “rescue thyself from death,” 
appeal to the healings by which He has exercised this power, 
i.e., to the deliverance of others from death.* It might be 
objected to this whole line of reasoning that the intent to pre- 
serve life is the intent of every physician, so that after all we 
are not carried by this joining of the ideas of life and salvation 
beyond the sphere of beneficence and philanthropy. But this 
would overlook the distinctly religious nature of the transac- 
tion involved: it is not life as such, not physical life as an 
ultimate end in itself, but life religiously considered that is 
aimed at. Hence the function faith plays in the matter. The 
reminder “thy faith has saved thee’ occurs in the healing- 
episodes, no less than in purely spiritual connections, such, e.g., 
as the anointing of Jesus by the woman, Lk. VII, 50. Besides, 
no perceptible difference seems to be felt between a case of 
disease-removal and one of demon-expulsion, and in the lat- 
ter the religious complexion of the act lies on the surface, 
Lk. VIII, 36. Not the exorcism is toned down to the act of 
healing, the implication rather is that the acts of healing are of 
the same realistic religious significance as the other, and 
equally with them belong to the rubric of withdrawal from 
the influence of death and introduction into the sphere of life. 
And the acts of doing good by healing referred to in Acts X, 
37, 38, at least in part, consist in healing those that were op- 
pressed of the devil.* Here the technical term for healing is 
used fduevos, which makes the association of the two lines 
of thought still closer. How easily the concept of healing 
passed over into that of spiritual deliverance can best be felt 
from Acts IV, 9, 10, 12, where the healing of the impotent 
man, characterized as “‘a good deed,” immediately gives rise 
to the reflection that in none other than the One in whose 
name this has been accomplished exists ‘the soteria’’ (observe 


3 Clement, Paed. II, 1, 5, 8, explains that the Creator has given man 
food and drink for the sake of being “saved,’ in order to escape death 


from starvation. 
4Cp. Wendland, Z. f. d. N. T. Wiss., 2ot7p, V, 351. 


262 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the article, omitted in the English version). Not even the rep- 
resentation that healings are symbolical of corresponding 
transactions in the spiritual sphere quite adequately reproduces 
the train of thought. There is more here. These miracles are 
in themselves exemplifications of the work of “saving,” for all 
disease and infirmity are at one and the same time the conse- 
quences of sin and the forerunners of death. Even Philo 
clearly perceived this when he said: “Infirmity and sickness are 
neighbors to death.’ ° The miracles of our Lord are only 
very partially and superficially interpreted when taken as pri- 
marily philanthropic acts. They belong to the great redemp- 
tive movement involved in the coming of the Kingdom, in 
fact are “signs of the times,’ with not discerning which our 
Lord reproaches his opponents, Matt. XVI, 3. Placed in the 
light of this the “salvation” brought by them can not possibly 
be restricted to the amelioration of individual or social condi- 
tions. Sin plainly is the ultimate cause from which the neces- 
sity for them arises, Jno. V, 14. Hence the two aspects par- 
alleling each other in the activity of Jesus are the removal of 
physical disability and the absolution from sin, Mk. II, 7-12. 
In the Fourth Gospel the supreme miracles of giving sight to 
the blind and life to the dead are outright represented as cor- 
responding to similar spiritual processes. 

These conclusions drawn from the miracles of healing are 
corroborated by the use of o@Gew in other physical trans- 
actions where no disease is involved. The deliverance from 
the peril of the storm, Mk. VIII, 25, the prevention of Peter’s 
drowning in his attempt to walk upon the waves, Matt. XIV, 
30, the taunt that Jesus shall ‘save’? Himself from the cross, 
as He had “saved” others, the ironical representation of Elias’ 
appearance for the purpose of his “salvation,” Matt. XX VII, 
40, 42; Mk. XV, 30, 31, all these agree in implying that “to 
save’ is to snatch from imminent death and to open the gate 
of (continuance in) life. In these instances the evidence is 
even stronger than where healing takes place, for the disor- | 
ders which the latter rectifies are not always in themselves 


5De Leg. ad Caium, 2, quoted by Wagner, Ub. odfew u. s. Derivata, 
2. f. d. N..T. Wiss, VI, xp. 211. 


THE SAVIOR 263 


critically fatal, such as the issue of blood or the lameness of 
limb, although, as observed above, they are to the feeling of 
Jesus and the narrators symptomatic of and in their ultimate 
issue inseparable from death. Matt. XXIV, 22 (Mk. XIII, 
20) may also be reckoned with this group: the shortening of 
the tribulation, lest no flesh should be “saved,” can be under- 
stood with reference to the extermination of all physical life 
through the calamities spoken of, although another exegesis 
would understand the term here in its technical, spiritual sense, 
the persecution being represented (hyperbolically) so strong as 
to involve, humanly speaking, even believers in the general 
apostasy. 1) Against this seems to speak the fact, that the 
calamities referred to are not of a kind that could be evaded 
through abandonment of the faith. In favor of it speaks the 
mention of “the elect’’ as those for whose sake the days of tribu- 
lation are shortened, and the occurrence of this term in the 
neighboring context, Matt. vs. 24, Mk. vs. 22. If this be pre- 
ferred, the passage belongs to the next group dealing with sal- 
vation in the technical sense.° The contingency of the falling 
away of the elect is in that case reckoned with only for rhetor- 
ical effect. In reality it does not exist, as the phrase “if pos- 
sible’ indicates, and as also the shortening of the days by God 
to prevent its happening shows. 

It is scarcely conceivable that these two groups of occur- 
rence of the word, that of healing the diseased, and that of 
deliverance from the peril of death, should have lain uncor- 
related in our Lord’s mind. And this appears still more un- 
likely, if we give the idea its larger setting in the development 
of Scriptural usage as a whole. The Greek O. T. uniformly 
has oe as expressing deliverance from danger, frequently, 
though not always, of course, of deliverance from danger of 
death, and hardly ever, so far as we have been able to ascer- 
tain, as descriptive of healing from disease as such.‘ And, as 


6 Cp. Zahn, Das Ev. d. Matth., ad locum. 

7 For the association with death and life in the O. T. cp. Gen. XLV, 7; 
XLVII, 25; I Kings I,:12; XX, 31; Nah. VI, 11; Job Il, 6. Nearest to 
the suggestion of “healing” come II Kings XIII, 21 (“that my bones may 
be saved”); Wendland, 2erjp Z. f. N. T. W., p. 348, observes that the 
Hebrew yw and its derivatives come nearer to the true import of  c@euv 
than “healing.” 


264 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


will be presently shown by a brief enquiry into the later N. T. 
employment of the word, here the same rule prevails. Un- 
less, then, one be prepared to abandon the continuity of revela- 
tion at such an important point, and isolate Jesus in the central 
part of his soteric consciousness from what preceded and what 
follows, the result above arrived at appears inevitable. 

How inherently present the polarity of death and life is in 
the concept may be estimated from this that the Syriac Pesh. 
has as its favorite rendering of the Gospel-passages the verb 
“achjah,”” “to ‘cause to \live.”” | This occurs (Matt. Ly2r haw 
22 X22) XVEos5; VIL ars XIX, Shek Ty) eee 
XX VIL, 42 5°Mk. V 23, 28, 345 X, 26, 525 MILL ee ae 
Tos EkK VI os VIT) SossVilly ie, 48) is: Lay ee 
N23 KX VIT 19; 32)(bis)s A VITT 26/425 XG SC ee 
30 times altogether. Over against this stand 2 instarices 
where “‘chalam’’ is used (Mk. V, 23; Jno. XI, 12), 3 where 
“assi’ occurs. (Matt. TX, 213'VU 56; Lk VILL eG) ohana 
where “pazzi’ is found (Matt. XX VII, 40; Mk. XV, 30, 31; 
Lk. XXIII, 39; Jno. XII, 27; finally 2 where the verb is 
“parak’”’; 13 cases altogether. It will be noted that some of 
the passages that have “‘achja’”’ refer to miraculous cures. 

We now turn to the cases where oe occurs in the tech- 
nical spiritual sense. It is in these that its association with 
death and life is most clearly perceptible. The classical pas- 
sage is Matt. XVI, 25-27 (Mk. VIII, 35-38; Lk. IX, 24-26). 
The peculiarity that here the ode is represented as the act 
of man, due to the antithesis between “losing’’ and “saving,” 
does not affect the intrinsic meaning of the word.* As among 
the three Synoptics the only important variation is that Mat- 
thew has in the second clause “shall find” instead of “shall 
save.’ The saying does not, as too often interpreted, refer to 


8 In thus making the subject of the saving act man the passage does not, 
of course, mean to depart from the practically constant usage, which 
ascribes the act to God, and not to man. The close connection of “saving” 
with the healing miracles should be sufficient to preclude this misunder- 
standing. Only metaphorically, in the sense of instrumentally causing to be 
tah man can ahi? as the subject, Rom. IX, 27; I Cor. VII, 16; I Tim. 
IV, 16; Jam. V, 20; Jud. 23. The theory that the Gospel or Jesus makes 
sue oni only, but does not save him de facto, finds no support in the 

ospels 


THE SAVIOR | 265 


a twofold type of life qualitatively appraised which a man 
might choose to cultivate so that for the one, the lower, kind 
of life-interests sacrificed he will by a natural law of recom- 
pense in the Kingdom of God, through the very act of self- 
sacrifice, inevitably develop a higher, far more valuable kind 
of life. The meaning rather is that the exchange or recom- 
pense takes place in the judgment-reckoning of God: the sac- 
rifice of earthly life through identification and cross-bearing 
with Jesus (Matt. vs. 24; Mk. vs. 34; Lk. vs. 23) will in the 
day of judgment, when the Son-of-Man comes with the holy 
Angels, to render every man according to his manner of doing 
bring the recompense of being able to save one’s life, that is 
of “being saved.” The object of the “saving” is throughout 
the “life,” and with precise correspondence of the opposite 
the ‘“‘not-saved” is “the lost.” If “to be saved’ means to find 
one’s life, then the opposite, described as “losing one’s life,” 
must be equivalent to death. Luke, quite in keeping with this 
has in the second clause Caoyoryoe: in the practically iden- 
tical statement XVII, 33.° This parallel passage makes still 
clearer, if there were any further need of it, the eschatological 
setting of the situation presupposed. ‘The emphasis on the 
transcendent value of the human soul in Matt. vs. 26 (Mk. vs. 
26; Lk. vs. 25) is what has led the exegesis on its wrong track. 
For this transcendent value, in view of which the whole 
world can not be counted a sufficient equivalent for ‘the soul” 
or “‘life,’ comes under consideration with reference to the 
judgment.*® The idea is that in the judgment-forfeiture of 
the soul to God the possession of the entire world would not 
avail for redeeming it. This point of view is plainly indicated 
by the verb fyusotoSon occurring in all three the Synop- 
tics, no less than by the emergence of the terms Avtpoy 
dutaaArayua, both signifying “price of exchange.” This say- 
ing of Jesus, then, we may safely conclude, most closely asso- 
ciates the idea of “salvation” with the thought of “life.” Even 
the clause “whosoever shall seek to save his life’’ is kept within 


9Cp. also “he shall find it” in Matthew here as well as in X, 30. 
fwoyovéry is also found in Acts VII, 19; I Tim. VI, 13. 

10 Notice the y4o marking the connection of thought in both Matthew 
and Luke. 


266 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


these terms. The man is in the trial of persecution repre- 
sented as seeking to seize it out of potential loss. The “seek- 
ing to save’ is not mere clinging to life or mere effort to 
retain it, as the rendering “preserve” in Lk. IX, 33 might lead 
us to think, but carries the specific note of seeking to retain 
it in the end, in spite of disloyalty to Christ. The future 
a7toAéoes is not a purely logical future of consequence, but 
hints at the futurity of the day of retribution. 

Another saying of spiritual reference, which clearly asso- 
ciates “being saved” with inheritance of and entrance upon 
life is found in Matt. X, 22; XXII, 13; Mk. XIII, 23: “he that 
endureth to the end shall be saved.”’ To refer this to deliver- 
ance from the persecutions described would render the state- 
ment tautological, and void it of promising content, since the 
very enduring until the end implies non-destruction till the 
end. The positive opposite of entrance upon life beyond the 
judgment must be intended. James I, 12 and Rev. II, 10 are 
parallels. 

A similar result is obtained from Matt. XIX, 25 (Mk. X, 
26; Lk. XVIII, 26). The disciples ask: “Who then can be 
saved?’ This “can be saved’ simply repeats the thought dif- 
ferently worded in the preceding context regarding the ex- 
treme difficulty of a rich man entering into the Kingdom of 
God. To the mind of Jesus and of the disciples, however, 
these two thoughts again equate the idea from which the en- 
tire interrogation started: “Master, what good thing shall I 
do, that I may have eternal life?,” cp. Acts XVI, 30. 

Still another indirect proof of the life-goal of odfecSau 
is furnished by a comparison of Lk. XIII, 23 with Matt. VII, 
13, 14. The aspect of odecSax which, instead of the nu- 
merical question of the many or the few, ought to engage 
the enquirer’s solicitude, is that of the experience of the proc- 
ess by himself. This process is further described as an “en- 
tering in by the narrow door.” The ‘“‘narrow door” is familiar 
to us from Matt. VII, 14; it is the “strait gate’ and “narrow 
way’’ leading unto “‘life.”’ 

In the Fourth Gospel the same equivalence of “being saved” 
and “obtaining life” may be gathered from III, 16, 17. Here 


THE SAVIOR 267 


the two propositions “not perish, but have eternal life’ and 
“not to judge the world, but that the world should be saved” 
make “being saved” practically identical with “having eternal 
life.’ The two propositions are joined by “‘for.’’ Again, in X, 
9, entering in by the door, which is Jesus, results in being 
saved. In vs. 10 the same result is expressed by the words: 
“T came that they may have life.” 

To the same conclusion leads the antithesis between odeaSae 
and a7déAaAvoSar, Matt. XVIII, 11; Lk. IX, 56; XIX, to. 
The verb dmdAAvvar has two meanings “‘to lose” and “to 
destroy.” Both have a place in the soteric vocabulary of Jesus. 
“The lost” are “the missing ones,” specifically ‘those missing 
to God,” those displaced from the normal religious relation- 
ship to Him as the center of life. The figures of the lost 
sheep, the lost coin, the prodigal’s departure from his father’s 
house, sufficiently illustrate this, without the necessity of adding 
doctrinal explanation. When over against such “being lost” 
the rectifying activity of Jesus is set, it naturally assumes the 
form of “seeking” and “finding,” Matt. XVIII, 11. Here it 
might be thought that the association with the idea of life is 
remote from the figure. Yet this would not be quite exact, 
not even within the setting of the figure of the lost sheep it- 
self, because when an animal is lost the fear will always ob- 
trude itself that what has wandered away must be in danger 
of some sort, perhaps in danger of death, so that “seeking fol- 
lowed by finding” delivers from fatal peril. But it is by no 
means the mere suggestiveness of the figure that injects this ele- 
ment into the concept. From the parable of the prodigal we 
learn that a specific transference from the sphere of death 
is contemplated, because the two descriptions “was lost and 
is found” and “was dead and is alive again” stand as equiva- 
lents side by side. The amdéAAvoSau is here compared to a 
state of death, something that goes beyond the mere “being 
missing.” The reason is that in the reality, shining through 
the parable, the absence of the sinner from God involves a 
termination of the process of religious life. What is here de- 
scribed is naught else than what the later Theology calls 
“spiritual death.” With it odfeoSau as a restoration to life 


268 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


is bound up. In the story of Zacchzeus the words “‘salva- 
tion is come to this house’ prove that not prevention from 
some future calamity, but actual rescue from one state into its 
opposite is involved. What is true of amdéAAvoSau in the 
weaker, semi-parabolic sense is true a fortiort of the same 
word in its stronger, more realistic, eschatological reference. 
Where “being lost” obtains the sense of “being ruined,” “being 
destroyed,” it is plain that nothing less than death and life 
can be at stake. To such an eschatological death-apoleia (“per- 
dition’) refer ‘Matt, Vit» v13 3X28 s: nol wav Tiveno eee 
course, describes far more than a state of alienation from 
God. It expresses the absolute, eternal ruin awaiting the evil- 
doer at the end. Translating it into terms of “death” it would 
be what the theologians have called “eternal death.’ ‘That 
a7twAgia is not more frequently connected with this most 
solemn of all things in the Gospels may be due to a hesitancy 
on our Lord’s part to lift the veil lying over these terrors of 
the judgment. 

A side-glance at the remainder of the New Testament may 
perhaps be of service for impressing upon us the intimate con- 
nection that existed in the early Christian mind between the 
contrasts to be saved vs. to be lost and to receive life vs. to be 
a prey to death. As in general, so here the doctrinal preci- 
sion and richness of elaboration are greater in the Apostolic 
period than in the beginnings of the process inaugurated by 
the revelation through Jesus. In Rom. V, 9 ff. the two clauses 
“we shall be saved through him from wrath” and “we shall 
be saved by his life” appear as naturally correlated. I Cor. III, 
15 Paul distinguishes between the consumption by fire of a 
man’s life-work in the judgment and the man’s own odCeoSau 
out of it “as if through fire’; through the escape from the 
destruction he himself enters at least into a positive state be- 
yond. In Eph. II, 5, 8 the words “made us alive together with 
Christ” and “by grace ye are saved” are coupled together. 
James II, 14, 17 are connected by the principle that something 
dead cannot produce life; the principle is expressed in this form 
that a dead faith is unable to save. I Pet. III, 21 says of the 
oatypia linked with baptism that it is accomplished through 


THE SAVIOR 269 


the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The title dpynydg is in 
Acts III, 5; V, 31 applied to Christ, because He is the first to 
enter through his resurrection into the realm of life, but this 
is significantly associated with his leadership in salvation. (He 
is “a Prince and Savior,” and “‘the Prince of life.”)) Accord- 
ing to Eph. V, 23 Christ is the Savior of the body (i.e., of the 
Church) in like manner as the man is the head of the woman, 
viz., through providing for the sustenance of her life. What 
is expected from the owr7e, whom the Christians are look- 
ing for from heaven, is that He shall change their vile body 
and make it like his own glorious body, Phil. ITI, 20. 

The conclusion that “saving” means to rescue from death 
unto life necessarily depends for its further filling up with 
content on the view that is taken of “life.’’ In the biblical 
development of the idea an objective and a subjective aspect of 
life may be distinguished. The former is the older one. It 
denotes the sphere or realm of blessedness in which, under the 
favor of God, the pious live, whereas the other denotes the in- 
ward potency of life as a spiritual possession. This latter was 
in course of time born out of the spiritualizing and internalizing 
of the former. The beginnings of this appear in the Synop- 
tics, but it is in the Fourth Gospel that the transition from the 
earlier to the later concept is in full view. Moreover the idea of 
life as an objective state or realm had during the later stage 
of Old Testament revelation been projected into the future. 
Life began to mean the eschatological kingdom of blessedness 
in store for the people of God. And it is to this that the con- 
cept of salvation primarily attaches itself. This will account 
for the fact that the negative pole of the idea is not seldom de- 
scribed in terms of the judgment. It is from the judgment, 
from the wrath to come, from sin and its consequences, that 
salvation is expected. This is understandable only, but also 
fully understandable, if the objective character of the life-state 
be clearly kept in the foreground, for all these descriptions of 
the terminus a quo for saving serve only as so many forms to 
register the barriers confronting the sinner and keeping him 
from the inheritance of and the entrance upon life. Thus un- 
derstood, they do not weaken the close interdependence of life 


270 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


and salvation, but bear indirect witness to it. Later on, and 
in the same degree as the life-concept is internalized, salvation 
becomes associated with the inward processes and states per- 
taining to the Christian experience. But even then these never 
appear wholly detached from the idea of life and death. Re- 
generation is a piece of salvation in this internal aspect, but ac- 
cording to Jno. III, 3-5, 16 and Tit. III, 5, 7 it does not on that 
account cease to find its essence and point of arrival in life. 
Since the negative element of the ‘““wherefrom’’ and the posi- 
tive one of the “whereunto” are inherent in the idea and in- 
separable from each other, it might seem as though the ques- 
tion which of the twain bears the stronger emphasis were a 
futile one. Still this is not wholly so. Even in so simple an 
idea, with only two correlated aspects, the human mind is in- 
capable of impartially distributing its attention so as to grasp 
both aspects in a single act, feeling the positive in the negative 
and the negative in the positive. Much will depend on the 
momentary state of feeling. At one time it may so vividly 
realize the distressing evils experienced and the peril run as to 
lose sight for the moment of the blessedness to follow after 
their removal, contented, as it were, with dwelling upon the 
relief of the escape as in itself a supreme joy. And again, the 
attention may be so fixed on the positive satisfaction to follow 
as to lose sight of the “‘seven deaths” lying between. B. Weiss 
insists on the negative aspect being everywhere the central one. 
It would be more accurate to stress the opposite, only adding 
that there scarcely is any reference to the “whereunto”’ from 
which the sense of deliverance experienced is entirely absent. 
There is often even more than a bare side-glance at that. The 
“Savior” never becomes, as he frequently does in pagan par- 
lance, an indiscriminate provider of all sorts of happiness.** 
The strongly developed sense of religious and ethical evil from 
the outset prevents such a lapse into downright hedonism. 
Perhaps a slight difference may be made in regard to the ques- 
tion at issue between the verb and the noun. The verbal idea 
of “delivering from” is abstract. Soteria, the noun, is not 
always an abstract name for the process, but more often a 


11 Cp. Wendland, Z. N. T. W., 1904, p. 351. 


THE SAVIOR 271 


concrete form for expressing the resulting state, and there- 
fore more apt to keep the balance of thought inclining towards 
the positive side. The somewhat subtle difference may be il- 
lustrated from a comparison between Lk. I, 47, 77 and Matt. 
I, 21. The consciousness of salvation of the woman who 
anointed Jesus may well have had a strong admixture of the 
sense of sinfulness, for she is bidden to “go in peace,’ Lk. 
VII, 47, 50. It ought not to be forgotten that what would seem 
to the modern reader at first sight preponderatingly negative 
may have had to the earlier Christian way of feeling a some- 
what different coloring. As indicated above, the salvation from 
judgment, in itself certainly complexioned negatively, may 
nevertheless have carried to the mind a positive sense of joy, 
because the judgment figured as the falling away of the last 
barrier to entrance upon consummate blessedness. The com- 
pound verb diacdecSaz Matt. XIV, 36; Lk. VII, 3; Acts 
Peres AV ais xX AVI T rs het Thi) 20, seems) to 
reflect this peculiar shade of feeling. On the whole we shall 
have to say that the specific contribution of the New Testa- 
ment to the development of the idea of “salvation” lies in the 
_ emphasizing and clarifying and enrichment of the positive side. 

The English Bible is fortunate in having ‘Savior’ as its 
rendering for Swr7p. Savior, although less easily carrying 
well-defined associations, is for that very reason pliable in both 
directions. The German “Heiland” is participle present from 
“heilen,”’ “gesund machen.” This lays too much stress on the 
negative side, marking the positive only by implication as a 
consequence from healing. On the other hand, the Dutch 
“Zaligmaker” carries prevailingly the association of the be- 
stowal of “zaligheid,’”’ blessedness. The Latin “Salvator’’ un- 
derlies all these Germanic versions, but seems etymologically 
more negatively colored than the noun “salus.” Cp. Wend- 
land, Swrnp, Z. f. N. T. W., 1904, p. 348, note 2. 

The foregoing is interlinked with the question, whether to 
Jesus (and the Gospels generally) the act of saving belongs to 
the present or the future. So far as Paul is concerned, good 
arguments may be quoted in favor of the view that the original 
reference was eschatological, and thence carried back into the 


272 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


present and past. As a matter of fact, with Paul three repre- 
sentations are found: the soteria is past to the believer, Eph. 
II, 5, “by grace were ye saved’’; nevertheless it can be repre- 
sented as still in process of realisation, I Cor. I, 18, “the word 
of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness, but unto 
us who are being saved it is the power of God”;** there is a 
certain part of the act still outstanding, Rom. V, 9, “much 
more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved 
from [the eschatological] wrath through him.” Both the 
present and the future aspects of the matter obviously played 
a large role in the consciousness of the early Christians as the 
merest survey of the passages in the epistolary documents 
immediately shows. In the teaching of Jesus likewise both 
sides are represented with sufficient clearness. The healing 
miracles place the occurrence in the present; the “salvation” 
enters into Zacchzeus’ house with the entrance of Jesus Him- 
self; it is explicitly attributed to the woman who anointed 
Jesus. On the other hand the Czsarea-Philippi discourse 
prophesies that the man willing now to follow Jesus in his life- 
sacrifice will obtain the salvation of life in the future, when 
the Son-of-Man comes to judge. And this holds true of our 
Lord’s eschatological discourse in general. He that endureth 
to the end shall be saved; he that has believed and been bap- 
tized shall be saved. ‘The same double-facedness is met with 
in Acts II, 40: “Be saved of this crooked generation,” which 
means, paraphrased: By separating yourselves from it pro- 
vide for your salvation in the judgment that will overtake them 
at the end. Cp. Acts II, 47: “The Lord added to them day 
by day those that were being saved.” Thus R. V.; A. V. has © 
for this: “such as should be saved.” ** 

Briefly the question may be touched upon here, whether 
in the s@r7p-cwrnpia-terminology there is perceptible any in- 
fluence, either by way of promotion or by way of reaction, 
from its prevalence in pagan circles, particularly the cult of 


12 Unless the present participles should be understood unchronologically, 
as participles of characteristic description. 

18 The majesty clinging to the function and name finds, of course, more 
eloquent expression, where they are used of the judgment-epiphany at the 
end, cp. Jam. IV, 12. 


THE SAVIOR 273 


rulers or the mystery-religions.** It has been truly remarked 
that such pagan derivation is not only implausible in itself, but 
entirely unnecessary in view of the large documentation of the 
usage in the Old Testament, and that not by any means merely 
in a politico-national but likewise in a specially religious sense.*° 
Harnack thinks that the singleness of the use of owryp by 
Paul in Phil. III, 20 (he does not count the Pastorals as Paul- 
ine) evinces a studied avoidance of the title with reference to 
Christ. The tenor of the passage, with its political side- 
glance (“our moAveta is in heaven”) might seem to favor 
this, but it can not be deemed likely in view of the copious em-. 
ployment of odGew and catnpla by the same Paul, for these 
last-mentioned terms were not rare in the pagan cult of the 
Emperor, nor otherwise in pagan parlance. 

The phenomenon of the sudden emergence of oar7p with 
great frequency in the Pastoral Epistles is somewhat surpris- 
ing. It has been brought into connection with the mystery- 
religions. Wendland, however, in the article quoted above 
dismisses this theory with the somewhat summary remark 
that the flourishing period of the mystery-cults belongs to the 
religious romanticism of the Second Century after Christ. 
He is more inclined to fall back on the general custom of 
deifying and worshipping rulers in the Hellenistic age. The 
same writer also controverts Soltau’s suggestion that in the 
Gospels the advent of Christ should have been consciously set 
over against the soteric advent and work of Augustus.** That 
Jesus should be called the gatyp rob xdouov Jno. IV, 42, is 
in his opinion something entirely outside the range of Jew- 
ish Christology and the mind of Jesus. This objection would 
have to be based on the universalism implied in the genitive 
tod xdcuov, but since this universalism is inherent in the 
Fourth Gospel, and the word owryp needs no credentials to 


14Some pertinent remarks on this point are found in Wagner, Uber 
cooley und seine Derivate im N. T., Z. f. d. N. W., 1905, p. 232; and 
a fuller discussion by Wendland, in the same periodical, under the title 
owthp 1904, PP. 335-347. 

15 The evidence for the intra-biblical sources of the terminology i is even 
stronger in regard to “salvation” than it is in the case of “redemption.” 
There is certainly no occasion to fall back upon pagan deification of man, 
something that to every Christian, no less than to every Jew, must have 
been offensive. 

16Z, N. T. W., 1904, pp. 351-353. 


274 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


the Christian mind or that of Jesus, it is difficult to see why 
the combination of the two. naturally indigenous elements 
should have to be traced back to a foreign source. Yarnp is 
not foreign to the Old Testament. It occurs more than a 
dozen times in various relations. Peter, who in his Second 
Epistle shares the frequency of owryp with the Pastorals, 
used the name early, if any reliance is to be placed on the 
authenticity of his speeches in Acts.. Further the speech of 
Paul in Acts XIII, 23 and Jude 25 and I Jno. IV, 14 must be 
taken into account, the last-mentioned probably dependent on 
the statement IV, 42 in the Gospel. Apart from the Pastoral 
Epistles all this need not cause wonder. As.to the Pastorals, 
it should be remembered that the Father and Jesus together 
have a share in the frequency of the appellation. It has been 
suggested that the studied emphasis on the term may have 
something to do with the Gnostic contention which denied to 
the O. T. God the owryp predicate. The Gnostic use of 
oatno differs in important respects from that of the N. T., 
although it, rather than xvpuos, was the favorite designation of 
Jesus, the reverse of what prevailed in Christian circles. 

The modernizing of the character of Jesus has seized upon 
the oaryp idea with a certain eagerness, because it seems to 
offer a point of contact with the favorite conception of Him 
as a humanitarian idealist. The title seems best adapted to 
mark Him as the Uplifter and Benefactor, bent mainly upon 
relieving all manner of distress and abnormalcy among men. 
Unfortunately, revealed in their true historic sense, the title 
and function prove themselves ill-fitted for incorporation 
into this philosophy of the life of Jesus. It is becoming in- 
creasingly clear that the “saving” of the New Testament is at 
bottom, not only something far deeper and more comprehen- 
sive, but also something differently oriented, than this mod- 
ernized version of the vocation of Jesus read into the Gospels. 
In this respect also the half-century toil of the “liberal’’ theol- 
ogy, instead of rehabilitating the historical Jesus, has only 
resulted in the construction of a far different figure, which is 
now being felt to be unhistorical after all. And at no other 
point, perhaps, has the disillusionment attending this result 
proven so poignant as here. 


Cuapter XV 
THE MESSIANIC DEATH 


Tuat the Gospels regard the death of our Lord as the very 
core and climax of his life on earth appears most clearly from 
their structure which makes the narrative gravitate towards 
the end. The force of this observation lies not in the chro- 
nology alone. It was unavoidable, of course, that the account 
of the Gospel-ministry should have the passion for its finale; 
after the death nothing further of his doings and teachings 
could be related; the death from the nature of the case had to 
stand at the close. But, whilst from the point of view of biog- 
raphy a brief statement of the fact would have been sufficient, 
we are offered a passion-epos stretched to the utmost limit of 
what the subject-matter will bear, the length and fulness of 
which render the Gospels, considered as mere pieces of litera- 
ture, ill-shapen through the disproportion of parts. Apart from 
the question as to whether such an arrangement of the ma- 
terial faithfully reproduces the perspective of Jesus in regard to 
his own task, there can be no doubt concerning the conviction 
on this point of the Evangelists. They stood near to the 
events, and they have given them this unique interpretation. 
‘The gospel is to them neither more nor less than a gospel of 
the passion and death of Jesus. And we may be sure that there 
is expressed in this not an abstract colorless acceptance of the 
overwhelming facts as mere facts, undetermined as yet by any 
philosophy of their significance. It is a theological understand- 
ing as much as a true regard to historical happening that has 
inspired and penned these closing accounts of the Lord’s life. 
The modern formula, ‘an atonement without a theory of atone- 
ment,” besides being self-contradictory, since the very term 
“atonement”’ is already the product of theory, stands certainly 


far removed from the way of thinking of these earliest wit- 
275 


276 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


nesses to the fact. The frequent representation, as though a 
mere rehearsal of the bloody scene, a mere holding up of the 
martyred figure of the Savior, could have had the tremendous 
effects caused by the Gospel of the cross savors far more of 
modern sentimentality than of a sound historic knowledge of 
the mentality of those to whom the evangel of the cross was 
first presented. Some theory must be put behind and into it, if 
its religious efficacy is to be made at all understandable. True 
history, worthy of the name, does not live without philosophy. 
Nor does Sacred History live without a fundamental theology 
incarnate in it. 

But this is not only true of the early interpreters of the 
fact; after the fact had become a matter of the past; it is 
equally applicable to Jesus Himself, while as yet the fact lay be- 
fore Him in the future. He certainly can not for any length of 
time have regarded it as a blind on-coming fate. To assume 
this, or merely to think it possible, would endanger the spiritual 
transparency of his religious mind. The fact itself would re- 
main intolerable, until some theological construction rendered 
it otherwise. Theology and Apologetic at this point necessarily 
run into one, as the first sermons on the death and resurrection 
of Jesus, recorded in Acts, clearly illustrate. And what is thus 
psychologically certain a priori receives ample support from 
the record. It appears that the main illumination brought by 
Jesus to bear on the mystery of his death issued from the con- 
sciousness of his Messiahship. The fact was too tremendous 
and strange a fact, and the Messiahship was too comprehen- 
sive and centralizing a life-category than that the two could 
have been kept from entering upon the closest of unions. 
Whosoever acknowledges the historicity of the Messianic con- 
sciousness is thereby ipso facto precluded from placing the 
prospect of death in Jesus’ mind in any other than a Mes- 
sianic perspective. And a death Messianically viewed can not 
but acquire the character of absolute necessity with reference to 
the fulfilment of the Messianic program. A thought-scheme 
that would render it barely tolerable, or let itself become recon- 
ciled to it after some peripheral fashion would be next to worth- 
less for a mind like that of Jesus. The Messianic interpreta- 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 277 


tion of his death was to Him from the outset the only one that 
could be possibly entertained. 

The facts on record are in full harmony with this postulate 
based on the inherent nature of things. Of course the im- 
possibility that the death should at any time have been con- 
sidered without adjustment to and incorporation in the Mes- 
siahship, does not carry with it that the reverse is likewise true. 
In the abstract.a Messiahship not including the thought of 
death is conceivable. But only so in the abstract, not in the 
light of the data which the Gospels supply. The Gospels do 
not countenance the favorite modern idea, as though the pre- 
vision and acceptance of his death came to Jesus in result of 
unforeseen, unwelcome turns in his career, necessitating modi- 
fication of a program in which the death did not originally fig- 
ure. For, while references to this tragic event are not fre- 
quent in the earlier part'of the teaching, for a reason presently 
to be stated, the few references occurring during this earlier 
period are explicit and chronologically fixed beyond doubt, so 
that every thought of non-presence of the expectation of death 
in the mind of Jesus, at least from a very early point, is 
excluded. 

A comparatively early reference to his death is made by 
Jesus in the parable about fasting, Matt. IX, 15 (Mk. IH, 20; 
Lk. V, 35). The point of the parable, considered as a pure 
parable, is that a season of joy is not a fit time for fasting. 
But very naturally, by manner of allegorical adaptation Jesus’ 
mind projects itself from this into the so entirely opposite 
future when joy shall have given place to grief. At that time, 
He says, the children of the bride-chamber will fast. This 
taking away of the bridegroom can not refer to aught else but 
his death, and specifically his death as the Messiah; otherwise 
the central figure of the festivities would not have been called 
“the bridegroom.” The allegorical way in which the parable 
is enlarged has, to be sure, given rise to doubt concerning its 
intactness, or even authenticity, but without sufficient reason, 
unless one were to consider every use of a parable by Jesus, 
for subsidiary allegorical purposes, unhistorical. There will 
be few at the present time willing to adopt this puristic canon 


278 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


of Jiilicher and others as an inexorable criterium for parable- 
exegesis and criticism. How naturally the side-reference to 
the sorrowful mourning-days is introduced merely as a cor- 
roborative foil to the main idea of the inappropriateness of 
fasting in days of joy! The structure of the discourse differs 
little in principle from the method, elsewhere observable, of 
putting a two-sided truth forward in two parallel parables. 
And the time for this utterance of Jesus must be comparatively 
early, not so much on account of its early place in Mark, but 
rather because the situation described points to a period when 
the issues between the group of John’s followers and the circle 
of Jesus’ disciples had not yet been sharply defined. 

But why, it will be asked, if the prospect lay early in Jesus’ 
mind, did the expression of it tarry so long? It is not until 
the episode of Czesarea Philippi indicated the rapid approach 
of the crisis that the subject was introduced in the intercourse 
between Jesus and the disciples. The solution of this difficulty 
must be sought in the conjunction of the death with the Mes- 
siahship. Had the Messiahship become a topic of professed 
instruction to the disciples at some earlier point then doubt- 
less the teaching about the necessity and meaning of the death 
would likewise have emerged in its wake at this earlier point. 
The minor problem is, therefore, swallowed up in the larger 
one. The latency of the passion-consciousness had something 
to do with the restraint exercised in regard to the Messianic 
disclosure. The too early introduction of the passion-motif 
would have rendered the Messiahship of Jesus still more un- 
acceptable than it was of itself. It was the unmistakable stamp 
of suffering and death now placed upon the Messiahship that 
did away with all further secrecy and hesitation. But this 
also worked in the opposite direction. The explicit announce- 
ment of the death could no longer wait beyond this point. If 
the Messiahship was to be safeguarded from misinterpretation, 
the idea of the approaching death, which alone could effec- 
tually serve as the instrument for this, had in its own turn to 
be safeguarded lest it should fail to be understood as an in- 
tegral element in the Messianic eventuation. The order in 
which things are made to proceed at this pregnant juncture of 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 279 


Gospel-history is obviously determined by Jesus with the ut- 
most care. After first soliciting from Peter the confession of 
his Messiahship He immediately subjoins to this the needful 
characterisation of the Messiahship through the injection of the 
idea of his death. The one protected and balanced the other. 

Care should be taken, however, not to place the two ideas 
entering into this episode entirely upon one line, as though in 
both cases it was equally a matter of revelation de novo, and 
that for Jesus Himself no less than for the disciples. For 
Jesus there was no revelation involved at all. Nothing in the 
account of the Evangelists suggests that at this point there en- 
tered as something new into his consciousness either the con- 
viction of Messianic calling or the sense of Messianic death 
approaching, or both combined. Both these are plainly treated 
as preéxistent in Jesus’ mind previously to this occasion. As 
regards the disciples, particularly Peter, the idea of Jesus’ 
Messiahship is not represented any more than in Jesus’ own 
case, an object of instantaneous revelation given at this par- 
ticular moment. It is true, Jesus declares to Peter, that not 
flesh and blood, but the Father in heaven has revealed to Him 
the momentous fact voiced in his acknowledgment, “Thou art 
the Christ.” But nothing goes to indicate that the supernatural 
impartation called a “revealing’’ was a single, momentary act 
closely preceding the confession of Peter. The Evangelist, who 
placed Ch. XIV, 33, in time as well as in order, before Ch. 
XVI, must have conceived of the revelation as a somewhat 
extended process. The only thing that 7s actually new in the 
Czsarea-Philippi transaction is the disclosure of the necessity 
and imminence of Jesus’ death to the disciples. This is the 
one item that to them (not to Jesus) had been unknown before. 
It had been unknown at least in this explicit form, as clearly 
appears from the impression produced upon Peter. That there 
had been no intimation previously even to the disciples it 
would be rash to affirm. Jesus froma relatively early date had 
held out to the disciples a prospect of persecution, and one 
coupled with the reminder that in that respect they would have 
to participate in the Master’s experience and could not expect 
to fare differently than He. Even in the Sermon on the 


280 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Mount, that favorite source of comfort for those who do not 
fancy a cross-centered Gospel, there is not a little to this effect, 
Matt. V, 11, 44; X, 16-38. Our Lord simply takes for 
granted that there will be a breach between his followers and 
the world. And, since the cause of this breach is placed in 
their identification with Him, the underlying supposition doubt- 
less is that the same conflict is in store for the Master Himself, 
only after a more principial fashion. And there is no point in 
Jesus’ life where this mental attitude can be said to have first 
begun. The “sunny,” untroubled days of “fair Galilee’ are, 
when exploited in such a sense, a pure fiction. There never 
was first an optimistic and subsequently a pessimistic period in 
the life of Jesus. As the approaching of the dread crisis did 
not render Him despondent towards the end, so its compara- 
tive remoteness did not render Him sanguine at the beginning. 
The intrusion ‘of such a terrifying thought as, humanly speak- 
ing, the thought of his death must, in the specific form belong- 
ing to it have been, could not have failed to leave behind it 
the evidence of a sudden shock. And evidence of that there 
is none in the Gospels. 

It has already been granted that from Czsarea Philippi on- 
ward begins the professed instruction concerning the fact and 
to some extent concerning its soteric significance. This ma- 
terial, therefore, we must next examine somewhat in detail. 
It were foolish to expect even here, after the fount of revela- 
tion on the momentous theme had been opened, a carefully con- 
structed and in all respects unambiguously formulated doctrine 
of atonement, although there is one saying actually making an 
approach to that, as will be shown presently. The predictions © 
of passion and death (sometimes including, sometimes omit- 
ting, mention of the resurrection) are three in number, and 
reveal an increasing tempo of emphasis and clearness. They 
are found, substantially alike, in all three of the Synoptics, as 
follows: Matt. XVI, 21-28 (Mk. VIII, 31-IX, 1; Lk. IX, 
22-27); Matt. XVII, 22, 23 (Mk. IX, 30-32; Lk. IX, 43-45); 
Matt. XX, 17-19 (Mk. X, 32-34; Lk. XVIII, 31-34). From 
them several important points may be gathered. Jesus here 
expressly declares his approaching death an integral part of 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 281 


his Messianic task. This was done, not merely by attaching 
the prediction of it directly to Peter’s confession of the Mes- 
siahship, but even more clearly by coupling the announcement 
with the subject “Son-of-Man.” It is not in any private or 
even prophetic capacity that He will undergo this experience, 
but as the Fulfiller of the Messianic vision seen by Daniel. 
This already implies the absolute necessity of what is to hap- 
pen, since the Messianic program is from the nature of the 
case unalterably fixed. But it is in addition traced back to ex- 
plicit prophecies from the O. T. Several times the term Sei 
“must” is introduced to express this. Agez does not in the 
first instance refer to an intrinsic soteric necessity, but to the 
necessity of Scripture-fulfilment than which from our Lord’s 
attitude towards the Scriptures no higher necessity could be 
conceived. Hence the third prediction, according to Luke 
(XVIII, 31) has: “Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and all 
things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of 
Man shall be accomplished.’ It would be a mistake, however, 
to regard this necessity, because proximately derived from 
Scripture, as forming to the mind of Jesus a mechanical, irra- 
tional fulfilment of mere words. Prophecy in his view ex- 
pressed beforehand the will and purpose of God, and these 
do not work after the manner of fate, but because of an in- 
herent rational purpose. This shows that in tracing the event 
back to the intelligent purpose of God our Lord placed behind 
the facts a reasonableness for their occurrence. They were 
facts luminous from within. To express it in theological lan- 
guage He posited in these statements not merely the event of 
the atonement, but likewise a theory of the atonement what- 
ever modern aversion to doctrinal theorizing on this matter 
may assert to the contrary. But the statements go still further 
in this direction. In one important principle this theory is 
brought forward from the background and given concrete 
shape, and this happens to be, not in regard to any subordinate 
point, but in regard to the highest bearing the theory could 
possibly have, viz., its bearing upon God. Our Lord most 
plainly teaches that his suffering and death are in their deepest 
significance necessary for the sake of God even before they 


282 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


can come under consideration as to their effect upon man. This 
finds expression in the first of the three passion-prophecies, 
Matt. XVI, 22, 23. When Peter exclaimed: “Be it far from 
Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee,’ Jesus replied: “Get 
thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me, 
for thou mindest not the things that are God’s, but those that 
are of men.” Here the contrast is sharply drawn between the 
things of God and the things of men. It would be an injustice 
to Peter to explain this severe utterance of Jesus as inspired 
by a criticism upon any sordid, selfish considerations underly- 
ing the Apostle’s behavior, as though Peter’s aversion to 
Jesus’ program sprang from the fear that the death of the 
Master might bring with it danger, and perhaps death, to the 
disciple. On the contrary, Peter’s motives were also religious 
after a sort; he was probably concerned about the Messiahship 
of Jesus, which he thought incompatible with the Messiah’s 
death, and concerned also about the effect of such an untoward 
event upon the people of Israel, because Jesus’ prediction in- 
volved not merely that He was to die in general, but particu- 
larly, that He would die at the hands of the leaders of the 
nation, so as to become the victim of a murder perpetrated by 
Israel upon Israel’s Messiah. Still all such considerations Jesus 
characterizes as under the circumstances minding the things of 
men. There is an infinitely higher interest at stake, the interest 
of God. So long as regard was had only to the benefit man 
could derive from the cross, the cross might appear undesir- 
able and to be avoided. Jesus accepted the cross from the love 
of God no less, nay before, He accepted it from the love of 
man. His submission to the cross was a supreme act of re- © 
ligion. From this it will be felt how unhistorical the represen- 
tation is, as though Jesus faced death from a martyr’s motive 
because He saw no escape from it provided He desired to re- 
main faithful to the principles of his mission. The issue may 
be sharply formulated in this form, that his death appeared to 
Him not so much inevitable but rather indispensable. He does 
not say to Peter: the circumstances require it; what He does 
say is: the interests of God demand it. Hence also He char- 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 283 


acterizes the suggestion of Peter, not as a mistake, but as a 
temptation, and Peter is not at first instructed but rebuked. 
The implication plainly is that in the cross Jesus renders a 
positive service to God; that to die is an act of obedience and 
that to withdraw would be a wrong committed against God. 
The suggestion of withdrawal partakes of sin. 

The more specific information as to how God is interested 
in the death of Jesus, and how at the same time it subserves 
the religious interests of man, is supplied by the so-called ran- 
som passage, Matt. XX, 28 (Mk. X, 45): “The Son of Man 
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his 
life a ransom for many.” It is true, the saving effect of Jesus’ 
death is not here touched upon for its own sake, but in order 
to illustrate and enforce the duty of self-sacrificing service 
devolving upon the disciple. The disciples were indignant on 
account of the request that James and John should be given 
the places of highest honor in the eschatological Kingdom. Our 
Lord rebukes both the spirit that inspired the request and the 
spirit of indignation it had provoked in the others. He charac- 
terizes it as identical with the spirit animating the rulers of the 
Gentiles : “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over 
the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones 
exercise authority upon them.’”’ The pagan princes exploit their 
subjects for their own selfish ends. In the Kingdom of God 
the opposite principle is to prevail: ““Whosoever would become 
great among you shall be your minister, and whosoever would 
be first among you shall be servant of all.’”’ Then Jesus repre- 
sents Himself as the ideal example of such conduct, and for 
this purpose points to his death as the consistent carrying out 
of the principle of self-sacrifice in the service of others. It is 
the culminating act in his life of service. It is plain, therefore, 
that He does not dwell upon the objective purpose or effect of 
his death, but apparently upon the subjective spirit only that 
was revealed in it as an example for his followers. Now it is 
commonly urged that, such being the connection of the words, 
we are not permitted, nor should endeavor to derive, any light 
from them upon the objective soteric purpose served by the 


284 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


death, because by the very purpose for which they are spoken 
every Godward purpose is excluded from consideration. And 
yet, decisive though this argumentation may seem to be, it is 
overthrown by the technical redemptive language Jesus em- 
ploys. He does not simply speak of giving his life to set an 
example for others, nor to benefit others, but specifically of 
giving his life a ransom for others. How shall we reconcile 
the palpable fact that ethical, altruistic instruction is intended 
as the primary lesson of the whole utterance, and that yet none 
the less the specific theory of redemption is drawn into it, al- 
though it seems so utterly to lie beside the purpose of the ex- 
hortation? The answer to this question is not difficult to find. 
Jesus touches upon the ransom-aspect of his death, because, 
so far from militating against its ethical motif, it most power- 
fully enhances the force of the latter. He who suffers and dies 
for another does a great thing, but he who suffers and dies 
for another by putting himself as a sin-bearer in the place of 
the other, and submits vicariously to the punishment due the 
other, does a far greater thing. Jesus has done the greater, the 
greatest thing, and this is what lends supreme force to his ex- 
ample. Therefore the exclusion of the thought of vicarious 
atonement as of no conceivable bearing on the ethical lesson is 
fundamentally wrong. In fact there is nothing else that could 
exercise so cogent a force for binding the example upon the 
conscience of the disciples as this very thought of vicarious- 
ness inherent in the example. 

In endeavoring to ascertain the precise implications of the 
altruism thus commended for imitation, we must sharply dis- 
tinguish between the objective goal of the process and the 
spirit in which it is carried out. Jesus, of course, did not 
mean that through self-sacrificing conduct his followers should 
ransom one another in the technical redemptive sense. The 
effect joined to the process was in this sense joined to it in 
his case only. Nevertheless the animating principle was 
capable of imitation and repetition in the conduct of the dis- 
ciples. So far as the effect is concerned, Jesus represents his 
death as the means for setting others free. This fits naturally 
into the terminology of “redemption,” AvtpdvaSa, “to buy 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 285 


free for one’s self.” * The presence of the idea is also postu- 
lated by the contrast affirmed between the aim of the rulers of 
the Gentiles and that in force among Christians, of which latter 
the highest exemplification is in Jesus’ vicarious life-surrender. 
If the Gentile rulers seek to enslave their subjects, Jesus seeks 
to place his followers in freedom. There is a figure in the form 
of expression, but the figure ought not to be used for elimi- 
nating the substance of the comparison. Some would have it 
that the figure of “ransoming”’ is purely incidental, chosen for 
no other purpose than to emphasize that the liberating of others 
was for Jesus a costly procedure, involving great spiritual ex- 
penditure, that in dying to free others He paid a high price, but 
that, strictly speaking, He did not die so as to pay a ransom 
technically, that there was neither giving nor receiving, and that 
it would be foolish to press the figure so far as to ask to whom 
the ransom was paid, or for what it was an equivalent. One 
form of this view is that advocated by Johannes Weiss. He 
thinks that Jesus expected from his death the effect of his ene- 
mies being moved to repentance, a view that, if actually repre- 
senting Jesus’ intent, would classify Him at least so far as his 
proximate enemies were concerned with the adherents of the 
moral-influence-theory of the atonement. So far as known to 
us, no instances have been adduced of such a figurative way 
of speaking in which the phrase Buy7jv dodvas AvtTpoy was 
merely a proverbial phrase for supreme costliness of procedure. 
Wherever else it occurs, it always carries far more definite im- 
plications based on the general belief in vicariousness, religious 
or otherwise, prevalent at that time in Judaism. And, apart 
from this, there is one other reference in the teaching of Jesus 
which makes use of this concept in such a way as to fit in per- 
fectly with the use here made of it. In fact, the resemblance, 
perhaps it were better to say the identity, is such as to make it 
hard to believe that our Lord did not have the earlier saying in 
mind when making this utterance. As to their general import 


1The Middle is the regular form for the action of the one who does 
the redeeming; he buys free for himself. The active Avtpotv is used 
of the previous owner, who, for a consideration, lets the object of the 
redemption go free. 


286 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


Matt. XVI, 26; Mk. VIII, 36, 37; Lk. IX, 25, have been exam- 
ined above. We here simply need to remind ourselves of the 
role played in this saying by the idea of extreme wealth being 
offered and rejected by God in the day of judgment as a ran- 
som for the forfeited soul. If aman should possess himself of 
the whole world it would in that eschatological peril of the loss 
of life profit him nothing : ““What shall a man give in exchange 
for his lifer’? So much moralizing and spiritualizing has 
been practised upon this statement, so much has been preached 
about the “infinite value’ of the human soul, and that as one of 
the few great central truths in our Lord’s teaching, practically 
all on the basis of this one passage, that the solemn tone and 
face with which according to the context they were spoken are 
well-nigh forgotten. 

This other saying of Jesus obviously rests on two O. T. 
passages which, if an actual connection exists, still render the 
import of the ransom-passage more clear. The first of these 
two is found in Psa. XLIX, 8, 9. The Psalmist speaks of the 
wealthy wicked. However great the power of their wealth may 
be in this life, yet it will not avail to save any of them when 
God requires their soul (or life) in death: ‘None of them can 
by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom,® 
for the redemption of their soul is costly, and must be let alone 
forever.”” The second passage is Job XXXIII, 23. Elihu 
speaks of a man stricken with fatal disease as follows: “Yea, 
his soul draws near unto the pit, and his life to the destroyers ; 
if there be with him an angel, an interpreter, to show unto man 
what is right for him, then he is gracious to him, and says, 
Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ran- 
som: his flesh shall be fresher than a child’s; he returns to the 
days of his youth.” * These passages are chiefly interesting 

2The Greek word here used is avTdAAayua “exchange”; this stands in 
the Sept. for H:3, more usually rendered by Atrpov, Through their re- 
curring upon the’ same original the equivalence of the two Greek terms is 
guaranteed. 

3 Here the Greek word is é/Aaowa, another rendering for “Kopher.” 

#It should be added, however, that the Hebrew in the Job-passage and 
in its context is extraordinarily obscure, as a simple comparison with the 


following translation of the LXX-text will show at a glance: “If there 
were a thousand death-bringing angels, not one of them shall injure him, 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 287 


because to the idea already found in the Gospel-passages they 
add two new things. In the first place they add the thought 
that the ransom may be conceived vicariously, as given by one 
man for another; none can redeem his brother, that is while 
the idea in the abstract is suggested the negation of its concrete 
possibility in the situation referred to is immediately added. In 
the Job-passage we have, on the other hand, the thought that 
under certain circumstances, described in highly mysterious 
language, a possibility of reversing the almost-accomplished de- 
struction, nay, turning into its opposite, may be conceived. 
And, secondly, in the passage from Job we meet the idea that 
if something different from mere wealth were offered the pur- 
pose in view might be accomplished. If some one should say: 
“Deliver him from the pit; I have found a ransom,” then God 
would accept the proposal and restore the sick man to health 
and vigor. Now it is not unlikely that in framing the ransom- 
statement our Lord had his other utterance from the Ceesarea- 
Philippi episode and these two Old Testament passages in mind. 
His words seem to carry the implication that what no man can 
do either for himself or for others that He will accomplish by 
offering his own life as the “ransom,” in view of which the 
lives of many will be redeemed. His life has greater purchase- 
power than the whole world, which, though a man should have 
gained it, he could not acceptably offer in exchange for a for- 
feited soul. Jesus offers to God a full equivalent, He gives his 
own life, and it works as a ransom for many. 

But our Lord’s statement alludes to still another O. T. con- 


provided he conceive in his heart to turn back unto the Lord,” etc. Here 
the interpreter (Angel), acting in the interest of man, taking pity upon him 
and interceding for him on the ground of having found a ransom appears 
in the quite opposite role of one of the numerous possible death-bringing 
agents of the divine retribution. And not only the character of the Angel 
is thus changed, also the idea of “finding a ransom” disappears, aithough 
in the sequel the general description of the forgiving and healing and life- 
restoring mercy of God remains. Had such a text stood before the mind 
of Jesus, it is doubtful whether the idea of his own ransom-giving would 
have been by Him connected with it. It is a totally different matter with 
the Hebrew text. While this also has its minor obscurities and possible 
corruptions, it without much difficulty yields a sense fitting into the thought 
of Jesus, as above indicated. True, the mystery of the “Angel-Interpreter,” 
the “One out of a thousand” remains. It is not easy to tell where precisely 
the analogy for this figure can be found in the O. T. . 


288 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


text. It is strongly reminiscent of Isa. LIII. In this Chapter 
the Servant of Jehovah, under the figure of a lamb, is depicted 
as undergoing suffering and death vicariously for the deliv- 
erance of the people. The features which, to our mind, place 
this allusion beyond doubt are: a) the words “‘to give his life” 
coincide with vs. 12 of the prophecy, “because he surrendered 
his soul (life) unto death”; b) the dvaxovety “ministering” in 
our Lord’s statement corresponds strikingly with the name of 
Him whom the prophecy depicts, “the Servant of Jehovah.” 
In the Septuagint text of vs. 11 there is an even closer approach 
to the Gospel-saying, for this reads, “him who served many” ; 
c) those who benefit by the vicarious service are called both in 
the prophecy and in the word of Jesus “the many’: vs. 11, 
“my righteous Servant shall justify many, for he shall bear 
their iniquities; vs. 12, “he bare the sins of many and made in- 
tercession for the transgressors”; d) the idea of payment, of 
restitution of value, is present certainly in the prophecy and 
perhaps in the words of Jesus, for the Servant is spoken of as 
making his soul an “asham,” a “‘trespass-offering’”’ with which 
the idea of making payment for withheld value was associated 
in the law, and Jesus’ gift, while from one point of view a 
“ransom,” is at the same time the supreme service, one surely 
rendered, not merely to man, but likewise, and primarily, to 
God. That our Lord found Himself back in the figure of this 
prophecy is proven by Luke XXII, 37: “For I say unto you 
that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And 
he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things con- 
cerning me have an end.” The joint-occurrence of no less than 
four points of identity of thought adds great support to the 
belief in a vital connection between the prophecy of Isaiah and 
our Lord’s reference to his ransoming task. 

Since, in view of the things observed, we are forced to put 
a vicarious, technically-redemptive construction on the ransom- 
passage, it becomes not only permissible (with all proper re- 
spect for the horror from allegorizing), but even imperative, to 
ask: To whom was the ransom paid according to Jesus’ under- 
standing of the matter? And to this there can be only one rea- 
sonable answer : He conceived of it as being paid to God. This 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 289 


follows from the entire representation in the Czsarea-Philippi 
discourse, where it is declared impossible that in the day of 
judgment man can give anything to the Judge, that is, to God. 
It follows no less from the passages in the Psalter and Job just 
commented upon: “None of them can by any means redeem 
his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him; in Job the 
Angel-interpreter addresses God when saying, I have found a 
ransom, deliver him from the pit. It follows still further from 
the dependence of our passage on the Servant-of-Jehovah 
prophecy in Isaiah, for there the surrender of the life of the 
Servant is plainly conceived as a gift to God, if for no other 
reason than this, that it figures as a sacrifice which as such could 
be brought to God only. 

Within the limits of the vicarious interpretation a certain 
difference of construction in regard to the words avti m0AAdy 
remains possible. Some exegetes prefer to construe the phrase 
“for many” with the subject of the verb “to give’: the Son-of- 
Man came to give his life a ransom in the place of many giving 
their lives a ransom. Jesus gives his life effectually, instead of 
an ineffectual giving such as the others might have attempted 
or might have been forced to give in punishment. But this is 
not in itself a plausible construction; it leaves too much to be 
supplied. Moreover the forcible yielding up of life in punish- 
ment would hardly be called a “giving of life.’ The natural 
construction from every point of view is to construe “for 
many’ with “a ransom.” The sense results that Jesus gave his 
life a ransom in exchange for the many, i.e., for the lives of 
the many that were in bondage. Jesus by giving his own life 
as a ransom thereby purchased their release. 

But who, we may ask in conclusion, are meant by the 
“many”? As intimated above, some interpreters find here a 
reference to the hardened mass of the Jewish people, and this 
so particularly as to exclude from the transaction even the 
disciples. Sometimes this is done on the ground that with ref- 
erence to the disciples Jesus never speaks of the necessity of 
any “ransom” being paid in their behalf. But it can not be 
proven that Jesus anywhere, either explicitly or indirectly, de- 
nies the necessity of a ransom for his followers in order to the 


290 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


forgiveness of sin. Not seldom the parable of the prodigal is 
made to render service in proof of such an anti-atonement theol- 
ogy. Weare told that in it the father receives the son back 
and forgives him without so much as the mention of punish- 
ment or even of probation. Consequently God can not have 
been conceived by Jesus as requiring satisfaction in order to 
forgive the repentant sinner. This, of course, rests on an 
abuse made of the parabolic form of teaching such as forces 
it to answer questions which it was never meant to answer. 
The sole point of the parable is that God forgives of free 
grace, asking the sinner neither to bring nor to do anything. 
How this procedure of free grace is made possible by God 
for Himself, as to that the parable gives no answer. But 
neither does it teach that there is no such process set in mo- 
tion by God to attain the desired result. If such a method 
of exegesis were to be followed in regard to other features 
in the parable, one might argue with equal warrant that Christ 
plays no part whatever in the return of the sinner to God, 
that there is no need of any Savior. Thus the parable would not 
only teach that there is no atonement, it would likewise teach 
that there is no Savior. Or, going one step farther, the parable 
might be made to teach that God does nothing to seek out the 
sinner in his estrangement, that He waits until the latter of his 
own accord returns. This reduces the exegesis employed ad 
absurdum. TloAAoi can not be so construed as to exclude others 
than the hardened Jews from the operation of the ransom. 
Nor should the reason why Jesus speaks of “many” be sought 
in his desire to throw emphasis on the limited scope of the 
atonement. There is no implied antithesis to 2davteg “all.” 
The simple solution of the problem lies in the contrast between 
the One who gives the ransom and the many who are ransomed 
by it. “Of the One to the many” (Rom. V, 15) would be the 
Pauline formula that would with precision at this point ex- 
press the intent of Jesus. The concrete reason, however, for 
the form chosen obviously lies in the prophecy of Isaiah where, 
as remarked above, the “many” are mentioned repeatedly as 
beneficiaries of the life-sacrifice of the Servant. And the 
motive for the introduction of the idea appears to have been 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 291 


with the prophet precisely the same we have surmised it to be 
in the case of Jesus. Isaiah wants to stress that through this 
vicarious act of the Servant, who is but One, the many members 
of the people are benefited. The best commentary on this fea- 
ture of the representation, both as regards the prophet and as 
regards Jesus, is found in Isa. LIII, 11: “He shall see of the 
travail of his soul and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my 
righteous Servant justify many, for he shall bear their in- 
iquities.”” | 

In conclusion, the most convincing proof for the correctness, 
nay, unavoidableness, of the vicarious interpretation lies in the 
effort of not a few critics (e.g., Pfleiderer) to deny its authen- 
ticity, and that on the ground of its reflecting the later Pauline 
doctrine of the death of Christ. We are told that the idea 
embodied in the passage must be placed to the account of Mark, 
who stood under the influence of Paul, and from whose Gospel 
it entered into Matthew. Critically there is nothing to this, but 
exegetically it proves that the vicarious sense is written large 
on the very face of the words. That, and that alone, will nat- 
urally interpret them. 

A third Synoptical utterance in which our Lord refers to 
the saving significance of his death is found in the words spoken 
at the institution of the Supper. It is neither possible nor 
necessary here to investigate the question of the Supper as a 
whole in all its historical and doctrinal bearings. Around it 
an almost unsurveyable bulk of literature has accumulated..° 
The sole point on which we fix our attention concerns the part 
assigned to the death of Jesus in effectuating the benefits spoken 
of or symbolized. Of course, it is in reality impossible to deal 
with this point with detachment of it from the general situa- 
tion, the less so since it obviously forms the center of the act 
as a whole. Still, much not of direct bearing on the death- 
feature can be left unconsidered without detriment to our at- 
tempt to understand the latter. So at the outset the question 


5 Out of this voluminous literature may be specially mentioned: E. Grafe, 
Die Neuesten Forschungen tiber die Urchristliche Abendmahlsfeier, Z. f. 
Th. u. K. 1895, pp. ro1-138; Spitta, Die Urchristlichen Traditionen tiber 
Ursprung und Sinn des Abendmahls, Z. Gesch. u. Liter. des Urchr., pp. 
205-337; Haupt, Die Urspriingliche Form und Bedeutung der Abendmahls- 
worte, 


292 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


of the historicity of the event, not unfrequently denied at the 
present day. Further the whole debate about what is called 
“the actual presence” of the Lord in the elements in some form. 
Still further the controversy as to whether the rite observed, 
if observed, was meant to be repeated or formed a unique, un- 
repeatable occasion. We start from the supposition that the 
Supper found and finds its analogy in the O. T. sacrificial meal. 
Paul represents it from this point of view, I Cor. X, 16-21. 
More particularly it is associated with the Passover, which 
was a sacrificial meal joined as a second part to the first act 
of slaying the sacrifice and manipulating the blood. Paul 
speaks of the cup in the Supper as “‘the cup of blessing,” a 
technical designation of one of the cups in the Passover cele- 
bration. Still further the occasion of the ratifying of the 
Sinaitic covenant, to which certain words of the institution 
refer backward, had connected with it a program of sacrifice, 
and this culminated in the sacrificial meal enjoyed upon the 
mountain before Jehovah according to the close of the account 
in Ex. XXIV, 9-11. Now, if for the reasons stated the 
Supper appears as a sacrificial meal, then the death, occupying 
the central place in the significance of this meal, can not have 
been considered by Him who instituted it otherwise than as to 
all intents a sacrifice. Paul, aside from his reference.to “‘the 
cup of blessing,” bears witness to this conception of the Supper 
as a sacrificial meal by calling it “the table of the Lord,” for 
this name is meant in strict analogy to the communion of 
Israel after the flesh with the altar, and even, from a formal 
point of view at least, to the eating of the pagans from the 
table of idols (demons), both of which refer to the eating of - 
the meat of sacrifice, 1 Cor. X, 18, 21. Jesus, in representing 
his flesh and blood, and not in their integrity, but as broken 
and poured out, as the food-substance in the Supper, clearly 
points to Himself as the sacrifice to which the Supper as its 
sacrificial meal was attached, and there is not the slightest 
reason for doubting that this understanding of the matter had 
come down from the Master to the Apostle, I Cor. XI, 23. 
Now the thing to be determined is, how the sacrificial death 
stands related to the religious status or condition of the disci- 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 293 


ples. What benefits did our Lord derive from it for them? 
What was to his mind its soteric significance? It is but natural 
to think in this connection first of all of the forgiveness of sin 
secured by the underlying act of sacrifice and conveyed by the 
meal. There is a solid basis for this view in the words of 
institution. No matter whether we take the Matthzan-Marcan 
or the Lucan-Pauline form of these words, and no matter what 
view one may take critically of the interrelation between these 
versions, it is on every view plain that Jesus must have con- 
nected the removal of sin and of the consciousness of sin with 
his death and the Supper. In the case of the bread this is 
plainer in Luke and in Paul. In Luke Jesus says that the 
bread is his body being given for the disciples; in Paul that it 
is his body being broken for the disciples. In the case of the 
cup we have the same form of statement in Luke (not in Paul), 
viz., that the blood is poured out ‘‘for you.’”’ According to the 
usual Pauline terminology the unép “for,” literally meaning 
“in behalf,” “for the benefit of,’ is associated with the sin-re- 
moving effect of the death of Jesus. “Christ died vmép yudv’’ 
means regularly with Paul: Christ died for the taking away of 
our sins, in order to our justification, cp. Rom. V, 8; VIII, 32; 
Perr Oo Ly ian kev, 33 LE Core Velrs) Galil, 4: [lao; 
prewar. V; 25 1b Dhesss V,103. 1 Tim! d],:63 Titus Il; 14. 
It ought to be acknowledged that wép in itself does not and 
can not express the vicarious idea of ‘‘in the place of,” as has 
not infrequently been contended. Yet nevertheless it is cer- 
tain that Paul, while writing vmép had in mind, as the more 
concrete and specified idea associated with the act that took 
place the conviction that it was in reality an act dvti. Why, 
then, it will be asked, did he not remove all doubt by writ- 
ing dvi? The answer to this is that the Apostle did not 
write with the proximate end in view of resolving our doc- 
trinal questionings. He evidently knew that his readers 
could not help associating the dvvi with the vmép. The more 
general leaves full room for the more concrete and specific. 
Nor was a positive reason lacking why the Apostle should 
have preferred imép to dyvi. There is something in unép 
that remains unexpressed by dvti, just as reversely there is 


294 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


something in dyri that uép can not express, but leaves only 
room for supplying in thought. The element that umép brings 
out, and that avvi would not of itself have brought out, is 
the intentional, voluntary direction by Christ of his death 
towards the end of the removal of our sins. The word puts 
into the expression of the objective act its benevolent self- 
sacrificing purpose. That the self-sacrifice meant in fact a self- 
substitution was so plain on the surface of the Apostle’s preach- 
ing as to need no special prepositional reminder. If the mat- 
ter lies thus with the form in which Paul records the institu- 
tion of the Supper, there is no reason for doubt, and every 
reason for belief, that the import is not different with the Syn- 
optics. The Lucan “which is given vzép” certainly can not 
mean aught else. And the abbreviated statement of Mark 
and Matthew “this is my body” will not have been meant as 
concealing in its abbreviation a point against Paul. And the 
same applies to Luke’s rendering of the words with the cup 
(blood) : it is poured out wnép vudy. How fully and clearly 
Matthew understood this unép may be seen from his per- 
haps more or less paraphrasing statement, ‘“This is my blood 

. which is poured out for many unto the remission of 
sins.” If Mark here contents himself with the more gen- 
eralizing form of statement “which is poured out rept,” con- 
cerning many, a form, it will be noted, not absent even from 
Paul, this cannot have meant a denial of the Pauline vicarious 
conception. From a mere study of the words, therefore, we 
arrive at the conclusion that Jesus intended his death towards 
the removal of sin, and the Supper towards an appropriation 
of its removing effect through forgiveness. 

It would, however, be a very inadequate method to study 
this matter from the form of the words only. The background 
of the situations to which it refers or alludes should be taken 
into account. In the ratifying of the Sinaitic covenant, de- 
scribed Ex. XXIV, the manipulation of the blood is made con- 
spicuous. If, as we may believe, Jesus’ words about another 
covenant made to rest in his blood point back to this momen- 
tous occasion in the history of the O. T. people, we ought to 
be able to gather from them something concerning the signifi- 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 295 


cance of blood .in such a transaction. In Exodus it enters as 
sacrificial blood. Can we infer from this that its use was to 
any extent expiatory, connected with the removal from the 
people of sin and uncleanness? The expiatory interpretation 
of sacrificial blood, at one time so commonly current, has in 
critical circles largely given way to a widely different theory, 
according to which the blood had at first nothing to do with the 
expiation of sin, but was simply sacramental blood effecting a 
life-union, physico-mystically conceived of, between the deity 
and its worshippers. Robertson Smith, in his epoch-making 
lectures on The Religion of the Semites, 1889, has been the 
chief modern sponsor for this view, which, however, even from 
critical quarters has received not a little criticism. It has 
been applied to the account of the covenant-making in Ex. 
XXIV. That half of the blood is here applied to the altar, vs. 
6, and the other half sprinkled upon the people, vs. 8, might 
well seem at first sight to favor the thought of a blood-union 
between Jehovah (as present in the altar) and the people. 
Still the separation of these two acts by the intermediate act 
of the reading of the book in the audience of Israel and their 
formal agreement to obey its contents tells strongly against 
this interpretation. For, if the intent had been to symbolize 
the close sacramental union, effected through one blood, the 
impression of this would have been weakened by the insertion 
of a transaction of a totally different, legal character between 
the two; the two acts ought to have been performed in imme- 
diate succession. For this reason it is better to assume that 
the application of the blood to the altar has in vs. 6 the usual 
expiatory significance. It first creates in the people that re- 
moval of uncleanness which is necessary to give access to Je- 
hovah, and thus enables them to hear and accept his words. 
The injunction of Ex. XIX, 10, 22 furnishes an exact parallel. 
The half of the blood kept in the basins is subsequently sprinkled 
upon the people as a sign of their covenant-acceptance with 
God, whence also it is called “the blood of the covenant,” vs. 
8b. That here it has no mystical significance is clear from 
the added explanation: “the blood of the covenant which 
Jehovah has made with you concerning all these words.” 


296 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


The same modern view of the blood-symbolism has been 
applied to the blood of the Passover-sacrifice. Here, however, 
the idea of cleansing is clearly present in the bunch of hyssop, 
Ex. XII, 22, wherewith the blood is put upon the lintel and 
side-posts of the doors, for the hyssop stands everywhere for 
lustration. 

One more item coming under consideration as favoring the 
expiatory significance of the broken body and poured out blood 
is the addition of the prepositional phrase umép moAAGy “for 
many” in Mark, mepi 20AAGy “concerning many” in Matthew.° 
In discussing the ransom-saying we found this to be one of 
several indications of dependence of that passage on Isa. LIII. 
And Isa. LIII is an intensely vicarious prophecy. There is 
some reason, then, to believe that where in the Supper the same 
allusion recurs it will have no other meaning than it had in 
Isaiah and in the earlier saying of Jesus. 

If, then, the expiatory significance of the Savior’s death is 
sufficiently vouched for by the words of institution, when these 
are duly constructed with historic surroundings and prece- 
dents in mind, the question next presents itself whether after 
all this exhausts their meaning. A closer examination reveals 
that Jesus’ death is not interpreted by Him as purely retro- 
spective, in the sense of its doing away through expiation with 
the disciples’ past. It also lays the foundation for a new re- 
ligious status. This finds expression in the word spoken with 
the cup: Mark, “this is my blood of the duaSyxy which (the 
blood) is poured out in behalf of many”; Matthew: “this is my 
blood of the dsaSyxn which is poured out concerning many”; 
Luke: “this cup is the new duaSyxy in my blood which is poured 
out in behalf of you”; Paul: “this cup is the new dvaSyxy in 
my blood.” ‘To be sure, the close conjunction of the covenantal 
character of the blood and its being, according to Matthew, 
“unto remission of sins” reminds us that under no circum- 
stances can the dvaSyjxn be separated from the forgiveness of 
sins.’ Strictly speaking, therefore, the introduction of the 


6 Luke has trép tudv. 
7 Jer. XXXI, 34, also connects the future forgiveness of sins with the 
eschatological “new” berith. Still it will be noticed that this forms not 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 297 


covenant-idea in itself does not postulate a positive, prospective 
effect apart from its lasting expiatory force upon the future 
status of the disciples. And yet, the characterization of the 
diasyxy as “new” in Luke and Paul suggests that the term 
has a wider outlook than that of furnishing a mere annul- 
ment of the past. Even in the case of the Sinaitic berith, the 
inauguration of it by sacrifice was felt to confer the fulness of 
religious privilege pertaining to the old dispensation. This the 
partaking of the meal before Jehovah plainly signified, for this 
feast upon the mountain included a vision of Jehovah. Be- 
sides this it can not be denied that there runs an eschatological 
strain through the institution-words, when these are placed in 
their near context. When Paul enjoins his readers to proclaim 
the Lord’s death “until he shall come,” this certainly is not 
intended for a mere chronological remark as to the perpetual 
validity of the observance in the Church. It suggests rather the 
idea that when the Lord shall have come the necessity for 
further observance of the sacrament will no longer exist, and 
this in turn gives rise to the thought that in the present ob- 
servance there is an anticipation of what the eschatological 
state has in store for the believer. Still here again the idea is 
not to be left out of sight that the prelibation enjoyed must 
constantly take its point of departure from the Lord’s death, 
for this, and not the outlook into the eschatological future, is. 
the theme of the ‘“‘proclamation” enjoined. In all the Synoptics 
our Lord’s mind is represented as turning in the midst of the 
celebration to an eschatological fulfilment, as it were, of the 
feast which is for Him the last on earth. He will not drink 
after that of the fruit of the vine until He shall drink it new 
in the kingdom of God.* Certain O. T. passages, speaking of 
the Messianic blessedness under the figure of a great feast, may 
likewise be quoted here; cp. especially Isa. XXV, 6-8. Rab- 
binical and Apocalyptic parallels for the enjoyment of the Mes- 


the central substance of the gifts spoken of in vss. 33, 34. It comes in 
only at the end. 

8 Luke’s text makes no explicit reference to the “‘drinking” of the wine 
new in the Kingdom, but even here in the negative “from now I shall no 
longer drink,” etc., this is clearly implied. It will be noticed that Matthew’s 
ye ‘par represents the occasion when Jesus will drink again as that of 
a joint-feast in the Kingdom of God. 


bd 


298 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


siah Himself in the coming age are also quoted in comparison. 
Even Jno. VI and XV, 1-8 have been appealed to as evidence 
for the possibility of such a train of thought in the mind of 
Jesus. But the burden of the proof will have to lie in the 
words of institution. In view of these we incline to the 
interpretation that our Lord finds in his death the basis for a 
comprehensive inheritance of the blessedness of the Kingdom 
of God, particularly in its eschatological prospect. But the 
peculiarity of the evidence is that when proceeding to enquire 
into the precise connection existing between this cause (the 
death) and its effect (the comprehensive content of the Chris- 
tian salvation) we receive no clear and definite answer, but are 
thrown back upon the expiatory character of the death as in 
perpetuum underlying the blessedness of the future. Would 
it be permissible to introduce the intermediate thought that 
Jesus’ death, inasmuch as it introduces Him Himself into the 
eschatological realm, furnishes the guarantee for the joint-in- 
heritance of the same with Him by the disciples? On that un- 
derstanding of it the death would open up the blessings of the 
coming state with a measure of detachment from the atoning 
aspect of the death. In the closing Chapters of the Fourth Gos- 
pel the presence of this thought is familiar enough. That it 
shines through in the words of the institution of the Supper 
we do not venture to affirm or deny.” 


9Jn recent times doubt has been entertained about the authenticity in the 
institution-account, not merely of the Adjective “new” with diatheke (which 
occurs in Luke and Paul only), but likewise in regard to the originality of 
the entire diatheke-concept in the oldest form of the record. It is sup- 
posed to have entered from Paul. On this question cp. the remarks of 
Wrede in Z. f. d. N. T. W., 1, pp. 73 ff. Wrede’s scepticism on both points . 
is almost entirely based on the queer combination of the words in the 
phrase 70 diud pov treo diadqxn¢, as found in Matthew and Mark, a con- 
struction so clumsy and un-Greek in his opinion as to make the later 
insertion of T%¢ dvadqKn¢, dragging behind as it does, practically certain, 
which then in its turn casts doubt on the original presence of the whole 
idea here. No one will assert that Td diud pov tHe deadqxne is an exemplary 
construction, judged by the standards of classical Greek. It by no means 
follows from this, however, that it is absolutely intolerable also in Hel- 
lenistic composition. Far less does this follow, if due account be taken 
of the Aramaic words lying back of the Greek. Of the latter uncer- 
tainty Wrede too easily relieves himself. It should be remarked in con- 
nection with this debate that the presence or absence of “new” as the 
adjective with dvadfxn is not of primary doctrinal importance. Whether 
the “new” was uttered by Jesus or not, the dvad%xn of which He spoke 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 299 


In the preceding remarks we have proceeded on the transla- 
tion of duaSyxy by “covenant.” The status of the question 
would be, of course, entirely changed if “testament”? were sub- 
stituted for this, and Jesus considered as the testator. From 
the death of a testator positive privileges and possessions ipso 
facto flow to those named in his will. The connection between 
Jesus’ death and the content of the disciples’ blessedness would 
be in this way directly established. But this would furnish 
more an apparent than a real solution of the difficulty. For 
the question would still remain wherein the point of compari- 
son lay between the operation of the death for good in both 
cases. In the case of a testator the result is the direct conse- 
quence of his ceasing to live, and to the case of Jesus this would 
obviously not apply. The corresponding aspect of the efficacy 
in his death would have to be sought in its deeper significance 
as an expiation or in some other way. In the Epistle to the 
Hebrews use is actually made of the analogy between Jesus’ 
death and a testator’s, IX, 16, 17. This is done to express the 
certainty of effectuation, but then only for a moment. Else- 
where in the Epistle duaSyjxy is not “testament.’’ On the 
inner, soteric connection between death and salvation this 
throws no light, since the writer construes this in quite a dif- 
ferent way, which has nothing to do with testamentary pro- 
cedure. In our opinion there is, aside from this passage in 
Hebrews, only one context in the New Testament where the 
rendering “testament” is indicated or required. This one con- 
text is Gal. III, 15 ff. It has been thought that for the choice of 
“testament” in the institution of the Supper support may be 
gained from Lk. XXII, 29, “I bequeath unto you a kingdom, 
even as my Father bequeathed unto me, that ye may eat and 
drink at my table in my kingdom.” Fatal objections lie against 


could under the circumstances be none other than a “new” one. And it is 
worth while noticing that from this institution, or, to say the least, prom- 
ise of a different dvad7xy light is thrown upon his consciousness of Mes- 
siahship. Who else but the Messiah could presume to regulate after 
this comprehensive fashion the entire religious relation of the people to 
God? The case is virtually the same here as with the institution of the 
Apostolate. This also is inconceivable on any other basis than that of the 
Messianic consciousness. For obviously the number of the Apostles is de- 
termined by the number of the tribes of Israel. 


300 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


this proposed construction and rendering. It would make the 
assignment of the kingdom to Jesus by the Father, by force of 
parallelism, of the nature of a bequeathal, and for such a repre- 
sentation there is no analogy to be found anywhere. We shall, 
therefore, at any rate in the second clause, have to render: “as 
my Father appointed [not ‘‘bequeathed”] unto me,’ and this 
makes the entire parallelism between the Father’s appointing 
and the Son’s bequeathing an impossibility so that if for no 
other reason than that of safeguarding the parallelism, we are 
forced to take “bequeath” out of the first clause likewise. Be- 
sides this the most plausible construction of the sentence is as 
follows: “I appoint unto you, even as my Father appointed unto 
me a Kingdom, that ye shall eat and drink at my table in my 
Kingdom.” Therewith the last vestige of support for the in- 
troduction of the testamentary idea here disappears. It is plain 
that the privilege of eating and drinking are not proper subjects 
to be assigned by manner of testament, although the endow- 
ment with a kingdom (on the old construction) might be.*° 

To the above discussion of the Synoptical material a brief 
statement may be added in regard to the interpretation put upon 
the death of Jesus in the discourses of the Fourth Gospel. That 
the Gospel as a document reflecting in addition to its record 
of Jesus’ teaching the Apostolic doctrine of the writer could not 
fail to give some expression to the importance of the Savior’s 
death, which had long before that come to be an article in the 
fundamental faith of the Church, might be, of course, a priori 
expected. The narrative of Jesus’ life reveals the same gravi- 
tation towards the momentous close as the Synoptical one. 
There must have lain a well-defined conception about the soteric 
meaning of the event underlying this structure and distribution 
of the material. Or, if any doubt could remain about this, it 
would be soon removed by a side-glance at the First Epistle, 
where Christ is represented as the iAaouds for. sin, II, 10; 1V, 
10. The choice of the nomen actionis, instead of iAaoTnp or 
‘Aaoua shows that to John’s mind Christ was the embodiment, 


10 A fuller discussion of the Diatheke-problem and of the alternative 
renderings “covenant” vs. “testament” is given by the author in two articles 
“Hebrews the Epistle of the Diatheke,” Princeton Theological Review, 1914, 
I9QI5. 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 301 


the precipitate, of this soteric provision made by God for the 
removal of sin. The emphasis on sin is throughout the Epistle 
mipeavynone ul ouOn Tomiie, LIT as Vi, 16-19.) tithe aim 
of the mission of Christ into the world is even said to consist 
in this “to take away sins,” and the plural of the noun shows 
that here some form of expiation for the actual sins committed 
must be thought of, something lying in the sphere of justifica- 
tion specifically. The “paraclete” of II, 1, also, is a condensing 
term for Christ’s value for the dealing with sin. But the Gos- 
pel-narrative reveals the same interest in this important concern. 
In the testimony he makes the Baptist give to Jesus, John twice 
introduces Jesus as “the lamb of God, which takes away the sin 
of the world,” I, 29, and by omitting in the second instance 
vs. 36, the participial clause, he reveals that the figure of “‘the . 
lamb of God” had already become fixed for him as a term with 
definite expiatory meaning; the second clause really needs no 
expression, for it could be analytically drawn from the first. 
That the figure rests on Isa. LIII is more than probable, and 
this derivation vouches for the vicariousness of the idea of 
“taking away” sin. It makes no essential difference whether 
the verb be understood of the “taking upon one’s self” or of 
the “taking away,” ie., “removing out of the midst.” The 
verb is capable of both renderings, Matt. IX, 6; XI, 29; XXI, 
43. The close dependence on Isaiah, and the sacrificial termi- 
nology (apart from the ritual of the Day of Atonement) seem 
to speak in favor of the former understanding, but it goes with- 
out saying that the taking up was always conceived as an act 
preparatory to the removing. It will be noticed that the pres- 
ent participle 6 aipwy proves the taking up or taking away hav- 
ing acquired to the speaker the character of a fixed soteric des- 
ignation; the lamb is sin-bearer set for that, his significance 
consists in it. In spite of all this evidence for the occupation, 
or even preoccupation, of the Evangelist with the concept of 
atonement, we should remember that the Gospel was not pri- 
marily written for a soteric purpose. Its purpose is theologi- 
cal. According to XX, 30, 31 the author was guided in his 
selection of material by the desire to convince his readers that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, they 


302 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


might have life through his name. The salvation is here, as 
elsewhere, lifted to the high plane of receiving through faith 
the revelation of Jesus as divine into one’s self. It is a revela- 
tion which not merely informs but which through super- 
naturally informing saves. This may have had something to 
do with the relative foregoing of stress on the principle of 
objective atonement. But the foregoing of the stress is only 
relative, as we have just ascertained. 

Coming now to the teaching of Jesus Himself recorded in 
the Gospel, we find that the background of vicarious expiation is 
no more absent here than it is in the narrative of the Evan- 
gelist. According to III, 14-18 the lifting up of the Son-of- 
Man, which certainly includes as its first stage the lifting up on 
the cross,** has for its proximate purpose that those believing 
on Him should not perish, but have eternal life. The same 
purpose, described in identical words, underlay God’s giving 
of his Only Begotten Son, vs. 16. And still more sharply it is 
defined in this, that the believer should not be condemned. All 
this, it will be observed, moves in the objective forensic sphere: 
it speaks of what we call the atonement, and admits of no other 
interpretation, if viewed without prejudice. Chap. VI, 51 has 
received sufficient comment above in connection with the title 
Son-of-Man. If the words “which I will give’ should be de- 
leted, as even so orthodox a commentator as Zahn proposes 
on textual grounds, the statement “my flesh for the life of the 
world” need no longer be pointedly referred to the crucifixion; 
it might be understood of the giving of Himself by the glori- 
fied Christ from heaven. The “flesh” and “the blood’ then - 
lose their association with the broken body and the shed blood 
of the crucifixion. If so, they could, however, scarcely be left 
in their generality, but would have to be given specific refer- 
ence to the Supper, and this, unless we ascribe to John and 
his circle a peculiar un-expiatory theory about the Supper, 
would of itself in a measure restore the connection with the 
atoning death. 

After this allowance has been made, however, we can not 
say that the substitutionary theory in its forensic form consti- 


11 Cp. XII, 32. 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 303 


tutes the specific teaching of Jesus on his death according to 
the Fourth Gospel. The latter must be sought in the represen- 
tation that death gives to Him and to those belonging to Him 
access to God and to heaven. If a word be needed to charac- 
terize it, we would call it the “priestly” interpretation of the 
Savior’s death. It finds its closest analogy in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews and the First Epistle of Peter. The comparison 
is useful in this respect also that it warns us against thinking 
that its application, with a peculiar ritual terminology, is meant 
in any way as a neglect or negation of the forensic idea, for 
both in Hebrews and in I Peter this is too unequivocally ex- 
pressed than that it could be conceived for a moment to have 
lain outside the doctrinal horizon of these writers. The pecul- 
iar phenomenon here met with is this, that, instead of the 
method of the atonement being stressed, as with Paul, its ulti- 
mate point of arrival stands in the center of the attention 
and determines, through a certain backward influence, the forms 
in which the process itself completes itself. Thus in Hebrews 
the sacrifice of Christ serves the purpose of “purifying,” “sanc- 
tifying,” “perfecting,” and all three of these representations 
receive their specific meaning from the idea of worship-ap- 
proach to God. According to Peter, Christ died the Just for 
the unjust, that He might bring us near unto God. The death 
of Jesus negatively takes away the disqualifications and posi- 
tively bestows the qualifications necessary for the worship- 
service of God in the heavenly sanctuary. To be sure, the 
chief disqualification consists in the presence of the unclean- 
ness of sin, but the removal of that is described in terms of 
priestly cleansing rather than in terms of forensic satisfaction. 
A great deal of hindrance to the correct appreciation of the 
point of view of Hebrews has been created by rashly identify- 
ing these terms with the Pauline ones, and forcing the latter 
thoughtlessly upon a circle of thought that is differently ori- 
ented. Purifying, sanctifying, perfecting, lie with Paul in the 
moral, subjective sphere, as is especially clear in the case of 
“sanctification.” In Hebrews the last-named has as a rule 
nothing to do with the moral transformation of the believer. 
It describes, on the contrary, what has been done through the 


304 THE SELF-DISCLOSURE OF JESUS 


sacrifice of Jesus outside of him to render the way open to God. 
In Pauline language we should call it “justification,” although 
that would not exactly reproduce the point of view. The most 
serious mistake made in this field lies in the theory that 
whereas Paul makes the atonement an objective process the 
Epistle to the Hebrews subjectivizes it. The opposite is true: 
“to cleanse” in Hebrews means ‘“‘to cleanse the conscience,” 
i.e., to take away the consciousness of sin, and to this would 
correspond that most objective of Pauline concepts “justifica- 
tion.” 

Now this whole trend of thought has its preformation in 
what our Lord teaches about his death in John, especially 
towards the close of his ministry. It was a correct instinct 
that led to naming the prayer of Chap. XVII the high-priestly 
prayer, for this outpouring of soul expresses the high mood 
of One who goes before and draws his own upward with 
Himself out of this world into the light above. To speak with 
Hebrews, He is the “Forerunner.” His supreme desire is 
that where He is the Disciples shall be also, XIV, 3; XVII, 24. 
He “sanctifies’” Himself for them, that they also may be 
“sanctified.”” The process here described is not a sin-removing 
process, for as such it would not be applicable to Jesus; it is 
the solemn dedication of the priest for his approach to God, 
which at the same time, in virtue of his identification with 
those whom He serves in a priestly capacity, is communicated 
to and participated in by them likewise. The resemblance of 
this statement to Heb. II, 11 is most striking, for there we 
read in almost identical words: “Both he that sanctifies and 
those that are sanctified are all of one.” Jesus lays down 
his life for his friends, XV, 13; and does so voluntarily, X, 
18 (cp. with Heb. IX, 14). The mention of “election” as 
underlying the oneness between Jesus and his own belongs 
likewise to this priestly train of thought, VI, 39, 44; XV, 
16, 19; XVII, 2, 6, 11, 12; cp. Heb. II, 13. Possibly’ from 
this conception some light can be made to fall on the “lifting 
up,’ which Jesus holds in prospect for Himself. Through his 
death plus the ascension He enters upon that uniquely fruit- 
ful state, from which by way of intercession and unlimited 


THE MESSIANIC DEATH 305 


endowment with power the most universalizing effects will be 
made to extend in every direction. Herein lies the reason why 
both for his individual disciples and for the chosen organism 
of the world it is better that He should go than remain, XII, 
24, 32; XVI, 7. 


THE END 


ANG 
AN 
bat, 


‘a ~! 


is hs eye | 
hay wn" TU hie’ 
“ Yr, * abe 








Deve 
Bal 


6) 


i 





bs, Sa Ren a 


ise 


Ra 


i i 


io eh 





Date Due 





av> i 


a i +) . i ' 
ey aT a0 2) 
he iat 2 at 


Bar 4 
OE 
| 





rinceton Theological Seminary- 


igh eet | | Pp y-Speer Library 


1 1012 01033 2858 

















